- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:19:31 +0000
- To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Roger Hudson wrote: > > From previous research I know that many web users do not understand > what the term “accessible” means when it comes to web content. This > appears to be particularly the case with older users of the web. "easy to use" The real problem though is that web pages are advertising and in advertising you must not use anything that has negative implications about your product. Saying that there is an easy to use version of the site implies that the main site is not easy to use (which while probably true, is not something that the designer would want to admit, even to themselves). To be suitable for advertising copy, the words chosen must not suggest that there is anything wrong with the main site. "accessible" is a positive word, but sufficiently jargon that it doesn't signal anything to the general public whilst still allowing someone trained to use such pages to find it. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 08:20:13 UTC