Universal Accessibility icon...?
Errr...just to clarify then - am I right in thinking that no-one's in favour of the 'multi-disability' approach...? 
Share: 
| Gary Miller wrote: |
| Errr...just to clarify then - am I right in thinking that no-one's in favour of the 'multi-disability' approach...? |
I'd say we're all in favour of the multi-disability approach—just that it's a little difficult to fit them all individually onto the one, simple logo!
Hmm. I've been starting to get an idea. You see, the big "A" still seems like a bit of a cop-out to me (imagine if they'd chosen a big "B" for the "biohazard" logo?), but something Dan Wilkins from Newsgrail's link said resonates with me:
| Quote: |
| How do we incorporate into a design chair users, cane users, dog users, sign language users, people with hidden disabilities, brain injuries, cognitive and developmental disabilities? How about folks with mental illnesses? The list is long and as individual as there are people living with one.
It seems to me the only way to not alienate anyone is to get away from a design that speaks to a certain disability or body type, like the current access symbol. We may have to abandon any type of representation of a human form. This is not to be misconstrued as eliminating the “person” or the humanity from disability. I only wish to refocus attention. |
I wonder, what kind of symbol could asbtractly notate the concept of "disability" or "accessibility" without actually representing specific disabilities?
Share:
I was wondering about something suggesting 'inclusivity' - imagine the standard wheelchair logo, but also a 'male' and 'female' standard logo alongside (you know, the sort of thing you'd find on gents/ladies toilets).
So you've got a sort of a triangle of logos, attempting to indicate inclusivity for all?
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Ouch. That implies wheelchair users neither male nor female, like, they aren't really people!! 
A big letter A looks like something to do with text styling. Or the toolbar button which displays the Formatting & Styles sidebar in Word 2002 (aka Word XP).
Any Mac-like Universal Access symbol still seems the winner, to me. The WikiCommons version probably solves the intellectual rights worries, too.
Share:
why all this reading into it?
There's no need to jump to that conclution. In fact I don't see how its even vaguely induced from the premice, rationaly.
(disble people != able bodied peole >> disabled poeple are not people) == (grass != tree >> tree != plant) == deductivism != rational logic.
And shock horror, disabled poeple are't able to do certain things using the same tools as able bodied poeple and need help or 'accomodation'. Well... erm... yer. The answer's kind of in the question.
This is when 'PC' annoys the pants off of me (personally).
But there you go.
Share:
I think we're all trying to juggle a few "guessing games" here—such as, what will people with disabilities make of the logo? What about people without disabilities? No one can know what most people will think of it or how they will feel about it without asking an unfeasibly large and representative number of people, so if sometimes it seems that we're stretching… Well, it's tough knowing what people will think a lot of the time. 
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| I was wondering about something suggesting 'inclusivity' - imagine the standard wheelchair logo, but also a 'male' and 'female' standard logo alongside (you know, the sort of thing you'd find on gents/ladies toilets).
So you've got a sort of a triangle of logos, attempting to indicate inclusivity for all? |
Worst idea so far, IMO. Sorry! it has nothing to do with being male or female, those symbols are just plain wrong to use in this context. And people are likely to be offended. What about those asexuals or whatever its called, that don't identify with either sex? I also think it implies that females and males use the web differntly from eachother. If your goal is to imply inclusivity for all humans, then I think the open arms human figure is a much better approach.
Share:
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Ouch. That implies wheelchair users neither male nor female, like, they aren't really people!! |
The intention was that the male and female characters may also be disabled: they may not. It could be interpreted one way or another, to represent inclusivity. You don't need both male and female, incidentally (if that fixes Linda's issue) - you just need both 'disability' symbol (which, like it or not, people recognise a wheelchair for) and some other person symbol to indicate that this is for 'everyone' as opposed to just those with or without disability.
However, if other people read it the same way you do, then it may be a non-starter.
I think the problem with the vetruvian man logotypes is that the majority of the population simply won't recognise them as having anything to do with disability - but we appear now to be going round in circles: people have different opinions and preferences: what we could probably do with is some original research...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| Linda wrote: |
| What about those asexuals or whatever its called, that don't identify with either sex? |
I think "genderqueer" covers that, although I'm not totally up-to-date on my GayPC™—it's been a while since my last Pride meeting!
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| what we could probably do with is some original research... |
Oh no! Now we need to have that big "original research" warning above the thread!
Share:
This is not what I what yet, but don't seem to be able to get much time for this at the mo...
Share:
... maybe something along these lines ... wheelchair would fit nicely inside ... just an idea
Share:
| Jordan Gray wrote: |
| Hmm. I've been starting to get an idea. You see, the big "A" still seems like a bit of a cop-out to me (imagine if they'd chosen a big "B" for the "biohazard" logo?) |
It's a total cop-out, I don't particularly like it myself. But it was chosen as a transition icon, since there's little immediate chance of a world-wide officially stamped icon.
- It retains the established color scheme of the wheelchair icon.
- It uses the only other symbol I've seen consistently associated with accessibility on the internet (mainly A+/A- font-sizing, but also A for accessibility)
- It sizes down to a standard 16x16 web icon and is still clearly visible.
- It won't offend anyone
- It recognisable.
- It's not restricted to any particular body of disabilities.
- It's not culturally locked.
- It doesn't have obvious multiple meanings unless you start guessing words.
- It's deliberately reminiscent of web icons and specifically the feed icon in the sense of "there's extra features you may want to use".
- If you're familiar with web accessibility surely you have a chance of guessing what it means without a label.
I'm not convinced it passes every test I listed with flying colors (particularly the unambiguity), but it's passable. Compare all those points with the suggestions so far/in the future and see how they tally. If the opportunity came to set a standard anew, I'd go for a unique, meaningless symbol like the biohazard sign that retains the white on blue. Trying to semantically represent accessibility and/or disability seems impossible to me.
Share:
Couple of ideas to throw in...
A helping hand indicating an an open door?
A raised (car park type) barrier with the text "No barriers"?
Just thoughts...
Share:
hmmm... Again I'm worried about the level of detail needed (the 'busyness'), but seems more possible.
Share: