Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

I am not just elderly, I am old (94) and have learned that if you insist on 
pleasing everyone, nothing gets done.  In this case I asume that for the 
first edition, the guidelines will have been followed, hence it will be 
accessible to screen readers.  That leaves the eye readers to accommodate, 
those that still read with their eyes but not well .  Typically they need 
the accommodations given the elderly, word wrap for long lines when they 
enlarge, and choice of font for their poor contrast sensitivity.

Alternatively, Bad eyes friendly?  No.  Eye readers friendly? No.  Visual 
reader friendly?  No.

Until something better is offered, I suggest "Elderly friendly" as 
something that will help many, perhaps most, of the eye readers.

===gm===






 "Elderly friendly" insulys noone and younger eye readers having trouble 
might try it to their benefit.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Lewellen" <klewellen@shellworld.net>
To: "G F Mueden" <gfmueden@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version


| what about the millions of those far from elderly that make use or can
| make use of the structure?
| Any term that hints at the us verses them is less productive than a term
| that allows anyone to benefit.
|  goodness some 30% of the us population can benefit from screen readers,
| and I dare say  many are not elderly.  Likewise the idea that age must
| bring such life changes is becoming somewhat moot as well.
| granted this all depends on your audience, if yours is a very very small
| group then perhaps, but if you are serving the general public, ask 
yourself
|  what does this convey to that public?
| Karen
|
| On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, G F Mueden wrote:
|
| > How about "Elderly Friendly"?  That is an expression I use to describe 
work
| > that helps those wih poor acuity and poor CSF (contrast sensitivity
| > function).  Both tend to come come with age.
| > ===gm===
| >
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "Karen Lewellen" <klewellen@shellworld.net>
| > To: "G F Mueden" <gfmueden@verizon.net>
| > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:05 PM
| > Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
| >
| >
| > | hmm,
| > | I think simple formatting may be too technical.
| > | The best way to season the term should speak to a common ground
| > | approach.
| > | Part of why I like optimize, every visitor might want to try that, if 
you
| > | follow me.
| > | Karen
| > |
| > | On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, G F Mueden wrote:
| > |
| > | > I like "Basic", but how about "Simple Formatting"?
| > | > Not crowded, allowing for magnification with word wrap, and nothing
| > fancy to
| > | > disable my choice of font.
| > | > My file, "Accessibility for Eye Readers", 12k and growing, is 
available
| > as
| > | > an email attachment from gfmueden@verizon.net    Comments welcome.
| > | > ===gm===
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > From: "Karen Lewellen" <klewellen@shellworld.net>
| > | > To: "Adam Cooper" <cooperad@bigpond.com>
| > | > Cc: "'Priti'" <priti.rohra@gmail.com>; "'Roger Hudson'"
| > | > <rhudson@usability.com.au>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
| > | > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:11 PM
| > | > Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | 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.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| >

Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 21:25:49 UTC