Accessibility icon
The fact that we need to use an icon to denote that something is user-friendly for everyone is a disgrace in its own right. If everyone was treated equally in the first place, and we all took steps to ensure no one was discriminated against, then there'd be no need for a logo.
Share: 
James, it's a valid point, but I don't think it is just about equal treatment, it's about being able to use facilities. Whilst I agree that all people should be treated equally, the practicality of this is rather different.
Think of a car park, why are the disabled spaces next to the store? because we cannot access the store as well as the able bodied.
Why do able bodied drivers have to pay and the disabled not? because we have different transport requirements and many times the car is the only means of transport available.
Why have special toilets for the disabled? because we cannot get up and down without using the adaptions and/or cannot manouver in the restricted space of a normal toilet stall.
Yes, great strides are being made to upgrade facilities to meet our needs, but there is still a long way to go yet.
I vote to keep the icon, not to mark us out as different, but mark us out as needing this extra help.
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| Mikea wrote: |
| I vote to keep the icon, not to mark us out as different, but mark us out as needing this extra help. |
I agree.
A while back I had a discussion at work with someone about equal opportunities (which as with accessibility is greatly misunderstood in many quarters). The whole point of both is that "disabled" people (and I don't like that label as a "disabled" person myself, but it's just shorthand, rather than me saying "well I've got X, Y and Z, and I can't do A, B and C, oh and sometimes I have problems with D and E, as well" - it's just a hell of a lot quicker than explaining everything) don't want or need "special" treatment, but that sometimes in order to be able to do things that non-disabled people take for granted, and do without any problems, disabled people need "different" treatment to level up the playing field.
| Quote: |
| If everyone was treated equally in the first place, and we all took steps to ensure no one was discriminated against, then there'd be no need for a logo. |
Equal opportunities and accessibility isn't about treating everyone equally, but about ensuring that everyone has equal access, whether that's to facilities or web sites or whatever, and that sometimes requires different treatment to achieve that equal access.
Share:
Hi
I read all of your thoughts on icons for accessibility. I am trying to find an icon that represents to users of our site that the site (or specific areas) are screen-reader accessible specifically. Does anyone know of an icon to represent this? I had been thinking about headphones... But we aren't providing audio. The user still needs his/her own screen reader to listen...
Any idea?
Share:
Share:
As I think I said earlier, I quite like the Half crossed out Eye icon.
| Quote: |
| Equal opportunities and accessibility isn't about treating everyone equally, but about ensuring that everyone has equal access, whether that's to facilities or web sites or whatever, and that sometimes requires different treatment to achieve that equal access. |
Spot on!
Share:
...Mikea... & ...fallen_angel...
Thank you - that is the first time I have ever seen/heard an accurate description of the situation.
I am so sick and tired of people misunderstanding, misrepresenting and down-right misusing the terms "disabled" and "discrimination".
The fact of the matter is, most people have some form of disability, one way or another, to one extent or another - we just don't realise it.
Be it slightly deaf, partially sighted or suffering from a minor mobility/physiological issue - it's amazing how many people don't think of such things.
Having a disability of a level that is recognisable is influential to many aspects of life... and I'm sorry ...jamessy... but it does have to be highlighted - and no, people can't all be treated the same - not ever.
Everyone is different and needs to be seen as such.
What the web needs to be doing is providing as many alternatives as possible - in a manner that works.
I have no intention - and am willing to refuse to do so - to cater to every single type of output required.
It's simply not feasable.
What can be done, and must be done (not should - must!), is to provide general "catchall" methods of serving content to those that require such.
Unfortunately, it appears that screen readers etc. suffer the same defects as browsers - there seems little "across the board" support for everything - and some things are handled differently to others, depending on the reader/browser used.
I feel it shouldn't be down to just the web--designer/developer - but to the producers of alternative browsers to ensure a minimum level of supported output is maintained.
It would also help if Search Engines could recognise sites that meet certain requirements, and can flag sites in the listings as being "accessible" to certain user-groups.
This would help ensure that those sites that have had the effort made are clearly available to those that need/want them.
... and back on to topic
...
I like the hand logo - but it still doesn't "ring true" as to signifying "accessible" ... add to the fact that an icon for blind-users is kind of pointless..... (sorry - I found it funny when I thought about it!) ..... but there must be something.
What about the symbols for "video captioning" ... isn't that the eye with the lines through half of it?
Is that globally known (to those that use it at least) ?
okay... maybe we are attacking this the wrong way?
It's not a simple icon for "disabled" users we need!
What we need to do is indicate if a site/page is usable to a text reader... and to other forms of user-input.... so maybe we need more than one icon.... ?
Maybe what is needed is several icons, providing indication of what that site/page has to offer to those users that find the usual content insufficient.
So we need to cater to...
- the partially sighted / visually impaired
- the blind
- the mobility impaired
... are there other user groups ?
So a site/page providing enlarged text, clearer definition (better contrast, less image based styling etc.), pure text only, correctly formatted/presented content, and accesskeys - these should cover the listed groups.
Right ?
So if we ensure sites have these inplace, (and correctly provisioned), and can stamp an icon on each.... then that would do the trick ?
Share:
Thanks for the compliment Autocrat
| Autocrat wrote: |
| Maybe what is needed is several icons, providing indication of what that site/page has to offer to those users that find the usual content insufficient.
So we need to cater to... - the partially sighted / visually impaired - the blind - the mobility impaired |
There is a danger of sticking an icon onto everything, then finding there is no room for ther content. The wheelchair icon is a simple method of identifying enhanced or suitable facilities. It's like the pictogram for toilet, either a male, female or wheelchair diagram. It does not take into account sexuality, height, weight, clothing, race, but still conveys the message, toilet.
| Autocrat wrote: |
| I have no intention - and am willing to refuse to do so - to cater to every single type of output required.
It's simply not feasable |
| Autocrat wrote: |
| I feel it shouldn't be down to just the web--designer/developer - but to the producers of alternative browsers to ensure a minimum level of supported output is maintained |
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
Here are a few symbols that could be used for a more universal icon.
alttext: Accessibility Icons - Embossed Vetruvian Man on Internet Navigator globe; Vetruvian man vector in blue and white; Internet navigator globe with keyhole, Apple Universal access icon with Vetruvian Man style twin limbs.
alttext: Accessibility Icons - Keyboard access icon and symbol in blue and white - keyhole on keyboard key; Audio Description for flash icon; Closed caption for movies.
The symbols could denote adherence to the following:
* Content is accessible with a screen reader
* Content is clear with CSS and JavaScript turned off
* Visual content has alternative text
* Moving visual media is captioned
* User interface controls have keyboard access
* Hyperlinks have titles describing the links destination
* Text can still be accessed when enlarged or reduced in size
Ekstasis - Universal Access Point Icons
Share:
HTML is disabled. Not sure why. phpBB is largely useless at enabling good markup in messages. The BBCode help page shows how to make lists properly, though. It requires a needlessly fiddly set of arbitrary punctuation characters.
Share: