- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:08:28 +0200
- To: Kevin White <kevin@w3.org>, wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Kevin, I don't feel too strongly about terminology. Happy to discuss with EO. Note, however, that "correct" refers to "correct implementation of the guidelines" (ie. "conformant"), which is different from "accessible". I'm personally not fond of "do" and "don't", even though it is what we want to say, but it seems too sloppy. Also "poor" seems too vague. Too many people are happy with "poor" as long as it is good enough to get them through the day (ie. if they perceive it to "meet the standard"). We want to more clearly indicate what meets WCAG and what doesn't. Best, Shadi On 19.8.2015 11:08, Kevin White wrote: > Hi All, > > Separating out this point as I think it can be resolved without conflating it with the overall design issues. > >> On 19 Aug 2015, at 08:57, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: >> >> * Avoid "Accessible" and "Inaccessible" valuation as this sounds too absolute, and we all know there is no absolute accessibility; > >> On 19 Aug 2015, at 09:59, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org> wrote: >> >> While correct/incorrect is probably the correct(!sic) way to do it, the wording feels a little bit bureaucratic and not very welcoming. I tried using “Do” and “Don’t” instead in this mockup and it works well (at least for the color example): >> > > I think correct/incorrect and do/don’t are as absolute as accessible/inaccessible. I would propose using poor/good as more subjective and friendly terms. As you say Shadi, there are no absolutes but it is generally quite easy to identify poor approaches and good approaches. > > Thanks > > Kevin > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, WAI International Program Office W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 10:08:38 UTC