Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Dear w3c Customer Service Support Team.

I'd like to unsubscribe from this forum.
Could you please organise it for me?

Regards, Inga



On 18 February 2012 23:10, David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>wrote:

> hmm, optimized for all
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>
> Adam,
> ROFL!  How dare you be so logical?
> but you illustrate why disabled, Never mind that no one is there
> disability, and the term applies to 8 zillion things having nothing to do a
> computer, is a poor choice.  People are already running into disabled form
> submit buttons and the like, which actually do not work.
> Basic is a fine idea, Google uses this for their mail structure and it
> draws in those who want to avoid the pop up clutter.
> > From a pr standpoint the common expression extends the use of your work.
> More cents on the pile,
> Karen
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Adam Cooper wrote:
>
> > "disable friendly version" = "render friendly version inoperative". . I
> > recall a ludicrous incident attempting to navigate a revolving door with
> a
> > white cane only to be 'assisted' by a well-meaning passer-by who
> directed me
> > to the "disabled door" to which I unthinkingly replied "but if it's
> > disabled, how will I get through it?"
> >
> > perhaps providing a compliant version using an appropriate stylesheet
> might
> > be preferable to providing an entirely distinct version? In which case,
> > something like 'switch to plain view' or view 'basic layout' might suit
> as
> > this is the purpose of the link?
> >
> > universal design is the holy grail , however, as many have already
> pointed
> > out.
> >
> > My two cents worth ...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Priti [mailto:priti.rohra@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:26 PM
> > To: 'Roger Hudson'
> > Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> >
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up! It is an interesting one & it would be fun
> to
> > know what alternatives people can come up with.
> > Also good you clear the question up as people's replies were going in
> wrong
> > directions.
> >
> > Anyways how about "Disable friendly version"? I know its bit too long for
> > designer's liking but I am sure they can come with some icons to make it
> > attractive and brief.
> > Yes, I know people will argue that accessibility is not only for the
> > disabled but it is the disabled who benefit from it the most & 'disable'
> is
> > the term widely known to people.
> >
> > Would love to know what others think about this?
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Priti Rohra
> > Freelance Accessibility Consultant
> > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pritirohra
> > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/priti-rohra/10/8a6/788
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger Hudson [mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:58 AM
> > To: 'David Woolley'
> > Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestions. But it seems from some of the responses that
> the
> > intention of my original post wasn't clear enough. I have explained this
> to
> > a few respondents off-list, but I thought it would be useful to say more
> on
> > the list.
> >
> > I am mainly interested in the term "accessible" (and "accessibility") and
> > not whether or not an accessible version of something should be
> provided. Of
> > course, like everyone, I agree that wherever possible content should be
> > accessible and providing an alternate "accessible" version avoided.
> >
> > However, sometimes it is not possible to make something accessible and
> WCAG
> > 2.0 allows for an alternative accessible version to be provided in these
> > cases. This could be, for example, because an advanced feature of a web
> > content technology, which is not sufficiently supported by ATs, is being
> > used. Or, at the other extreme, an application that is to have a short
> > web-life is dependent on a legacy system that it is difficult or
> impossible
> > to make sufficiently accessible.
> >
> > My concern is that this alternate version is often accessed via a link
> which
> > includes the word "accessible". This might be meaningful to people who
> work
> > in the web industry, but I know many general web users don't know what it
> > means.
> >
> > Also, many sites contain a page which describes the accessibility
> features
> > of the site, or which provides information to help people who might have
> > problems accessing the content (e.g. how to use the browser to increase
> > text-size). Once again, the link to this page often includes the words
> > "accessible" or "accessibility" and I know from my research (and that of
> > other people like David Sloan) that many web users don't understand what
> > this word means. If you are interested in this in relation to older web
> > users, I touched on the subject in a presentation I gave at CSUN last
> year -
> > slide and transcript on my blog
> >
> http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/improving-web-accessibility-for-the
> > -elderly-csun-slides-and-transcript/  (slides 45 and 46).
> >
> > In short, the aim of my question is to see if we can come up with some
> > alternatives to the words "accessible" and "accessibility" that are
> likely
> > to be more meaningful to the wider public.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Woolley [mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2012 7:20 PM
> > To: Roger Hudson
> > Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonnie Appleseed
> With His
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> Touching The Internet
> Reducing Technology's disabilities
> One Byte At A Tie
>
>
>