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

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:21:49 -0500
Cc: "Mattes, Kurt X1" <Kurt.X1.Mattes@chase.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9C07B174-58A2-4E94-AC4D-6486EA8ED8C6@comcast.net>
To: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
agreed.  but accessible to whom?

On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:09 PM, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net wrote:

The attempt is to convey, briefly, the concept that "There is a version of this website for which effort has been made to maximize usability for people who might have difficulties using the primary website, perhaps because it relies to heavily on Flash, or non-screenreader compliant / non-keyboard accessible AJAX, or is too glitz-heavy for people with cognitive limitations. This version of the website offers the core functionality without these problems."

There is a word for that.  It is "accessible".  No, not every user who needs the accessible version will know the term, but many others will. Meanwhile, if you come up with some non-standard term you think conveys the same information, you'll lose all the people who know the code word "accessible".

Microsoft Outlook's web application has a <a href="http://help.outlook.com/en-us/140/ms.exch.owal.defaultlight.aspx"light version</a--- when I started using web Outlook, I had no idea this was the accessible version.  (At another point in the options, they  also provide this option as "Use the blind and low vision experience", which is another example of over thinking it; it's not obvious this is also the keyboard- and voice-accessible version for sighted users.)



Jonnie Appleseed
With His
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet
Reducing Technology's disabilities
One Byte At A Tie
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 18:22:13 UTC

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