- From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:50:59 +0200
- To: Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>
- Cc: Régine Lambrecht <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA++-QFfEU7UV+nG0RYReMOX1zt9kXYJJ4+nHfMT-5suDdOh9uQ@mail.gmail.com>
1. Accessibility is a must in any user interface, whether Website (WCAG), Authoring Tool (ATAG), or User Agent (UAAG); 2. Laws on equality also apply to employees (and labour laws with respect to equal treatment will also apply). BTW: I think that while it may be more pleasant to work with an interface that's aesthetically pleasing (pretty), it won't affect the usability. Usability is primarily an objectively viewed art; while aesthetics is primarily a subjectively viewed art. Regards, Harry On 11 September 2012 09:19, Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>wrote: > Hi All, > Absolutely agree! Accessibility "must" not impact design / usability. > That's the reason, one should think of accessibility right at the design > stage itself and code semantically and with right techniques for whatever > technology that one prefer to use. > > Best, > -Vasu > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Régine Lambrecht < > Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I think accessibility should not impact on usability; and a pretty >> interface is part of its usability. For identical functionalities, an >> employee will be more productive (and happy) if working with a pretty >> interface. There has been experimental research on this: prettiness is part >> of usability. So you should care about its visual prettiness anyway. >> >> But accessible doesn't mean ugly, as we know :) >> >> Régine Lambrecht >> E-fficiency Coordinator >> Prevention Advisor >> ________________________________________________ >> Tel. +32.2.235.56.62 >> >> >> www.tipik.eu >> Tipik Communication Agency S.A. >> Avenue de Tervueren 270 • B-1150 Bruxelles >> Tel. +32.2.235.56.70 • Fax +32.2.235.56.99 >> Tipik is a Sword Group Company >> >> ï Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Woolley [mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:00 AM >> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Administrative interfaces >> >> Christian Biggins wrote: >> > >> > I was wondering whether or not an administrative interface for a website >> > should also be compliant? >> > >> > Personally I would think it should, but clearly there is a fairly >> > weighty argument against the additional work, especially if you are >> > controlling who can and cannot access the interface. Granted if you hire >> > somebody who relies on the use of assistive technologies, you would need >> > to revisit, but would it be a requirement? >> > >> >> Ultimately this is a question for legislators, but in my view it should >> be easy to produce A or AA compliance for such an administrative >> interface, because you do not have to worry about branding and making it >> visually pretty. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets > Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org > > Let's create an inclusive web! > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 08:51:32 UTC