E-mail List Archives
Thread: Ethics
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Oliver Burmeister
Date: Thu, May 09 2002 3:44PM
Subject: Ethics
No previous message | Next message →
Dear All.
I was disappointed in the otherwise excellent WebAIM course run last month,
to find what I thought was a generally light or soft approach to ethics (eg
in the week 2 discussion - for those of you who participated). Let me
declare my biases at the outset. I am a founding and executive member of the
Australian Institute of Computer Ethics. I am an advocate of ethical
responsibility for IT professionals.
Being relatively new to things accessible I was very pleased to see that the
WebAIM course did more than just give lip service to ethical issues.
However, other than using the word 'ethics' repeatedly, and making comments
that it is hard to read anything on accessibility without coming across the
term 'ethics', very little specific or deep discussion followed.
Sure there were concerns for general social responsibility toward the
disadvantaged in the community. There were concerns (quite well expressed in
an article referenced in that discussion) about the digital divide. There
were general concerns for the needs of the aging population. There were
equity concerns. Yet little in the way of specifics/depth.
I invite you either to this list or to me personally (and at some future
point I will summarise the discussion to this list), to share what to you
are the ethical issues. Perhaps together we can explore the issues in a bit
more depth?
I look forward to your replies,
Oliver
------------------------------------------------
Oliver Burmeister
Lecturer
Swinburne Computer-Human Interaction Laboratory
School of Information Technology
Swinburne University of Technology
PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122
Australia
(T) +61 3 9214 8304
(F) +61 3 9214 5501
email: mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
URL: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/schil/biographies/oliverburmeister.html
SCHIL URL: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/centres/schil/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: David R. Stong
Date: Fri, May 10 2002 10:38AM
Subject: Re: Ethics
← Previous message | Next message →
I though that the five week WebAIM course was excellent. I didn't
miss the discussion of ethics at all.
"Ethics" are subjective. When I present the idea of Web
accessibility, I don't need to be embroiled in a discussion of moral
duty and obligation that could easily side track the issue at hand.
Someone easily approachable may become radically opposed to the idea
because of my concept of the ethics of the issue. Yes, there are
ethical issues. Yes they are interesting to discuss. But I don't feel
that an argument based on the moral and ethical obligation of
accessibility work will do one thing to promote the concept to people
that aren't seeing it.
>Dear All.
>
>I was disappointed in the otherwise excellent WebAIM course run last month,
>to find what I thought was a generally light or soft approach to ethics (eg
>in the week 2 discussion - for those of you who participated). Let me
>declare my biases at the outset. I am a founding and executive member of the
>Australian Institute of Computer Ethics. I am an advocate of ethical
>responsibility for IT professionals.
>
>Being relatively new to things accessible I was very pleased to see that the
>WebAIM course did more than just give lip service to ethical issues.
>However, other than using the word 'ethics' repeatedly, and making comments
>that it is hard to read anything on accessibility without coming across the
>term 'ethics', very little specific or deep discussion followed.
>
>Sure there were concerns for general social responsibility toward the
>disadvantaged in the community. There were concerns (quite well expressed in
>an article referenced in that discussion) about the digital divide. There
>were general concerns for the needs of the aging population. There were
>equity concerns. Yet little in the way of specifics/depth.
>
>I invite you either to this list or to me personally (and at some future
>point I will summarise the discussion to this list), to share what to you
>are the ethical issues. Perhaps together we can explore the issues in a bit
>more depth?
>
>I look forward to your replies,
>
>Oliver
>
>------------------------------------------------
>Oliver Burmeister
>Lecturer
>Swinburne Computer-Human Interaction Laboratory
>School of Information Technology
>Swinburne University of Technology
>PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122
>Australia
>(T) +61 3 9214 8304
>(F) +61 3 9214 5501
>email: mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>URL: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/schil/biographies/oliverburmeister.html
>SCHIL URL: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/centres/schil/
>
>
>----
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
>visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
--
David R. Stong, Graphic Designer
225 Computer Building, University Park PA
Working for Universal Design:
http://cac.psu.edu/training/outlines/accessibility
Subscribe to a forum for discussion and resource for learning about
creating universally accessible Web pages at Penn State. Click and
Send: mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Leave
the subject line and body blank.
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Frank Gaine
Date: Tue, May 14 2002 11:38AM
Subject: Printable character between adjacent links
← Previous message | Next message →
Group,
Checkpoint 10.5 of the WAI states "Until user agents (including assistive
technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable
characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links."
do you know whether this guideline applies equally to adjacent image-based
links as it does to adjacent hyperlinks?
Regards
Frank
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Tue, May 14 2002 12:12PM
Subject: font preference
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
Has there been any research done into which font type is more readable on
the screen -- serif or sans serif? Of course, css should be used to set the
font type so that users can override ut. However, it would be nice to have
css use the "most prefered" option. Personally, I have always used Arial or
Helvetica. Simply wondering if there is any research suggesting the
contrary. Thanks.
Cheers,
Glenda
*********
Glenda Watson Hyatt
Soaring Eagle Communications
"Creating freedom and power through accessible communications"
E Mail: mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Website: http://www.eaglecom.bc.ca
Want to know how to make your website accessible to more people?
Subscribe to our FREE newsletter by emailing
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
*********
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Mark Newhouse
Date: Tue, May 14 2002 1:04PM
Subject: Re: font preference
← Previous message | Next message →
on 5/14/02 12:09 PM, Glenda Watson Hyatt at = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> Has there been any research done into which font type is more readable on
> the screen -- serif or sans serif? Of course, css should be used to set the
> font type so that users can override ut. However, it would be nice to have
> css use the "most prefered" option. Personally, I have always used Arial or
> Helvetica. Simply wondering if there is any research suggesting the
> contrary. Thanks.
This one was published in March, 2001. It examined readability and font
preferences for older people (ages 62-83).
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm
Conclusions are quoted below...
CONCLUSIONS
Several observations can be made from these findings. First, 14-point fonts
were found to be more legible, promote faster reading, and were preferred to
the 12-point fonts. Second, at the 14-point size, serif fonts tended to
support faster reading. Serif fonts, however, were generally preferred less
than the sans serif fonts. Third, there was essentially no difference
between the computer fonts and the print fonts. Thus, in light of these
results, it is recommended to use 14-point sized fonts for presenting online
text to older readers. However, a compromise must be made in deciding which
font type to use. If speed of reading is paramount, then serif fonts are
recommended. However, if font preference is important, then sans serif fonts
are recommended.
HTH,
--Mark Newhouse
We put the "blah" in blog...
<http://homepage.mac.com/iblog/>;
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Tue, May 14 2002 1:29PM
Subject: RE: font preference
← Previous message | No next message
Interesting survey results -- both surveys. Wonder if amount of time at the
computer would have any impact, ie all day versus a few moments for a
survey.
Glenda
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Newhouse [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: font preference
>
>
> on 5/14/02 12:09 PM, Glenda Watson Hyatt at = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>
> > Has there been any research done into which font type is more
> readable on
> > the screen -- serif or sans serif? Of course, css should be
> used to set the
> > font type so that users can override ut. However, it would be
> nice to have
> > css use the "most prefered" option. Personally, I have always
> used Arial or
> > Helvetica. Simply wondering if there is any research suggesting the
> > contrary. Thanks.
>
> This one was published in March, 2001. It examined readability and font
> preferences for older people (ages 62-83).
>
> http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm
>
> Conclusions are quoted below...
>
> CONCLUSIONS
>
> Several observations can be made from these findings. First,
> 14-point fonts
> were found to be more legible, promote faster reading, and were
> preferred to
> the 12-point fonts. Second, at the 14-point size, serif fonts tended to
> support faster reading. Serif fonts, however, were generally
> preferred less
> than the sans serif fonts. Third, there was essentially no difference
> between the computer fonts and the print fonts. Thus, in light of these
> results, it is recommended to use 14-point sized fonts for
> presenting online
> text to older readers. However, a compromise must be made in
> deciding which
> font type to use. If speed of reading is paramount, then serif fonts are
> recommended. However, if font preference is important, then sans
> serif fonts
> are recommended.
>
> HTH,
>
> --Mark Newhouse
> We put the "blah" in blog...
> <http://homepage.mac.com/iblog/>;
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/