W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Mattes, Kurt X1 <Kurt.X1.Mattes@chase.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:50:42 +0000
To: David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
CC: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>, "'Priti'" <priti.rohra@gmail.com>, "'Roger Hudson'" <rhudson@usability.com.au>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <19308F86CE22B44AB0CD9E74B1B03BAA055E95@SBECMX013.exchad.jpmchase.net>
Oh, the joys of semantics in the English language (times 2 for American English!) Not being anything close to a language expert, I like to think of language as a means to convey intended meaning. If that is achieved, the recipient of a communication (language experts aside) should avoid dissecting the semantics. But sometimes semantics can be humorous (thanks Adam) and sometimes they create confusion.

Things can be disabled, like a door that won't open
Disabled people are laid to rest IMHO
All people have disabilities (please don't become fixated on this point)
I believe "disable" is a verb, as in to disable something

Following this logic, a Web site that is not accessible to people using ATs or any variety of features provided by user agents is a disabled Web site for these people.

Hence, a link with "disable friendly version" seems to convey making the friendly version disabled.

In an example of my non-existent language expertise, perhaps "same stuff, different presentation" or simply "alternative presentation" conveys what is intended by an alternate version. Who am I to decide which version is easier or more accessible for any individual? That determination is solely the individual's. 

The personal and humble opinion of,
Kurt Mattes
Just one man, doing all he can, to make enjoying the Web possible for everyone

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hilbert Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:41 AM
To: Karen Lewellen
Cc: Adam Cooper; 'Priti'; 'Roger Hudson'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

hmm, optimized for all

On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:

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,

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-f
> or-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

This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  Although this transmission and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
 If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 17:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:38 UTC