Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Hi Jonathan,

	I think you are confusing things inadvertently.
	Your email is not using Universal Design in the manner it is intended.   

1) Universal Design is a practice not an outcome.  -  There are no Universal Designs.    
2)  Universal Design should never be construed to mean  'one size fits all'.

Universal Design is meant to refer to the techniques like the ones you worked so hard on at the BBC. 

True universal design is about one-size-fits-one    and creating designs that allow people to adjust things to fit their individual needs. 

It is the ability to have both high and low contrast (and those in between that people need).   Large and small fonts (and those in between that ...) .  etc.

This adjustability might be built into the page  -- or rely on browser or system capabilities.  (though many do not know how to use the latter)

With GPII we are, (as you know) trying to make it automatic so that content, user agent and system settings can all automatically be brought into play to meet the specific user's needs and preferences - without the user having to do anything. 


It is great to hear that you will be bringing these ideas forward with your new site.  
But this IS universal design that you are doing.    UD is not about creating any single anything that everyone can use.  -- UD is just the practice of designing things with everyone in mind -- and maximizing (to the extent possible) the number of people who can use something, through the product's design and interface flexibility. 

In WCAG - some provisions are about making pages work directly (in default mode) for large numbers of people. Other provisions are about ensuring that the content can be re-presented in other ways to meet the needs of other people.   Only one or two provisions, for example, are about making content directly accessible to people who are blind.   Instead they rely on the provisions that allow re-presentation in a form that they can perceive and understand. 

Contrast is a direct methods for large groups of people with low vision and for many types of cognitive, language, and learning disabilities.  Other individuals do better with low contrast -- so other provisions  1.1.1,  1.3.1, etc ensure that content can be re-presented with different contrasts. 

Keep up the good work.  But please don't equate UD with one-size-fits-all.   That was not the concept or definition by any of the term's creators. 
thanks much   

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net








On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jonathan Hassell wrote:

> Thanks for your comments, David.
> 
> Hassell Inclusion is my site, and I take inclusion very seriously.
> 
> Accordingly, you'll find that both of the colour combinations you mention meet WCAG-AA rather than having 'almost zero colour contrast'.
> 
> However, you're right that the shade of blue I used only met AA for the large text on which it was used on the home page. The contrast could have been better for smaller text used elsewhere. I've darkened the shade accordingly so it passes all WCAG-AA tests at whatever size I use it.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> In turn, could I point out that high colour contrast colour-schemes, whilst helping many people with vision impairments, actually hinder a great number of dyslexic people from reading the page.
> 
> That's why 'universal design' doesn't work - it's not universally good for everyone, as people with different disabilities have completely contradictory colour preferences.
> 
> So it's impossible to please everyone, unless you provide a means of changing the colours on the site.
> 
> This is something I'm already looking into, as I already mention on my site's accessibility statement: http://www.hassellinclusion.com/accessibility/
> 
> As for 'large areas white on the first two screenfuls' - no-one else has experienced this problem. Could you let me know which browser you're using? (I've tested the pages in Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE 8...)
> 
> If you have any other comments on how you think my site could be improved, please email me on jonathan@hassellinclusion.com.
> 
> Jonathan.
> 
> 
> From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
> Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012, 22:32
> Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> 
> Carla wrote:
> 
> > http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2011/12/accessibility-myths-2011/
> 
> Were these examples of how not to write universal pages?
> 
> Dark green on grey in the tabs: almost zero colour contrast.
> 
> Light green on white in the body text, also a poor colour contrast, but not nearly as bad.
> 
> Large areas of white space on the first two screenfuls; I presume it only works in one browser.
> 
> Centre justification in the print version - at least they do have a print version and it doesn't go off the edge of the paper.
> -- 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>