Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Karen, please tell us what you mean by optimze and how it differs from 
Roder's first edition.
I presume he would do the best he could to follow the guidelines.  Optize 
for what?
===gm===

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Lewellen" <klewellen@shellworld.net>
To: "G F Mueden" <gfmueden@verizon.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version


| As I shared off list, not sure  how this became a private exchange, unless
| this project is specifically for seniors who resonate with the term 
elderly,
| at what age does this begin?  I mean we have a 95 year old mayor here
| in Ontario, > clarity is the goal I guess.
| Optimize, with an explanation of how you define that with "what's this?
| lets you divide or unite with information as much as you might wish.
| basic is fine too leading users, any user of any age, to understand the
| construction is less graphical.
| Karen
|
| On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, G F Mueden wrote:
|
| > 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 22:18:14 UTC