RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Well, 
http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2011/12/accessibility-myths-2011/
http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2012/01/web-accessibility-myths-2011-part2/

Page 2 is even more interesting.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: David Hilbert Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 18 februari 2012 19:22
Aan: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
CC: Mattes, Kurt X1; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

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.)

-Deborah


-- 


-- 
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 18:30:30 UTC