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

RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:47:04 -0500 (EST)
To: "Mattes, Kurt X1" <Kurt.X1.Mattes@chase.com>
cc: David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, 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: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1202181542240.89956@server1.shellworld.net>
Beautifully written.  The words we use, how we use them, the ways we 
perpetuate stereotypes with their choice, no matter how well intended are 
Optimized hints at a site made more efficient, and regardless of the market 
the road construction rules personified in a compliant cant translate into 
more efficiency for everyone.
I would skip for all, seems redundant.
and if you want to define the reasoning you need simply add a
what's this?
link underneath, where you can explain your motivation for creating the 
optimized edition.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mattes, Kurt X1 wrote:

> 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:
> 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-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 20:47:29 UTC

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