Talk:International Symbol of Access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disability (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon International Symbol of Access is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

About the Unicode character[edit]

The point of including the symbol as Unicode was to show what the symbol shows up as on the user's computer, which may vary depending on the fonts they have installed. If we're not going to show the Unicode character then we shouldn't show a raster copy of the character either, as the exact implementation of the character will vary. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But if its a standard unicode symbol, the character should look the same on all typefaces which support it. I don't see how the symbol would vary between typefaces. If not, then it should at least be included as a thumbnail image in the article. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For example, the thickness of the lines could be adjusted, or the edges made more or less rounded. Just because a character is in Unicode doesn't mean that every font is going to implement it the same way. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what you're saying. But we shouldn't have the character on the page because it shows up as a question mark (?) on probably 90% of all computers. Unless a user has a compatible font installed on their system, they will be seeing a question mark, which can lead to confusion. I think we should just leave the character off the page all together. Either that, or implement the one I uploaded as a thumbnail. ––Dream out loud (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC

by:LYNETH COMAHIG

Unclear about the ISA and Braille[edit]

In the introduction, it says: "The wheelchair symbol is "International" and therefore not accompanied by Braille in any particular language.". I simply do not understand this sentence at all, it makes no sense (to me). I see that this may be caused by the fact that English is not my daily language, but I do not understand how the fact that the symbol is International can be a reason for not including Braille with it in situations where this would be of help for vision impaired people. I understand that you couldn't possibly include Braille in every language, but fact is, there are some languages which large parts of the world would understand, and if a severely vision impaired person comes across a sign with the ISA, unless the wheelchair symbol is raised, they would not have any way whatsoever to know what the sign is there for, what it means. Had a "flat" sign e.g. been accompanied with Braille e.g. in English, French and Spanish (possibly also German), chances are that a quite large part of the population would understand what the sign means (esp. if it is placed on a sign with a raised ISA. Signs are also often made locally, which would make it possible to include the language in question, maybe in combination with one or a few other languages. Without going further into that subject (since the "content" of the issue isn't the what needs discussing, but rather is really the message and could it be expressed more clearly/in a better way). I really think somebody who know enough about the ISA and it's use in combination with Braille, should look at that sentence to evaluate how it can be made more clear and possibly if the sentence simply should be removed. When I think about it, I wouldn't be suprised if the ISA sometimes is accompanied by Braille, by _local_ users who add it to their specific sign, in their own language(s) and maybe also another language. For all I know, the case could be that combining the icon with Braille is something the copyright holders has decided shouldn't be mandatory/standard when the sign is used, and that this is what the sentence is meant to express. If that is the situation, it is my opinion that the sentence should be edited, so this is made 100% clear.

Thanks for looking into this! :)

Peapeam (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ISO 7000 or 7001?[edit]

The symbol shown (stick figure with blocky ends) appears to be part of the ISO 7000 standard. The current ISO 7001 symbol is more in the style of the AIGA symbols (rounded ends). Go to https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search and search for "accessible". In any case, the symbol shown could be better drawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.243.137 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Black & white graphics file[edit]

I was looking for the basic symbol to make some temporary signs for a small public event. I couldn't easily find this page (I was looking for "wheelchair access sign".) Also, the sign I wanted isn't quite the International Standard (blue and white), because I wanted to print the signs in black and white. I found a sign via Wikimedia Commons which did the job. If this page were improved to make tasks like mine easier, the sign would be used more widely. Oaklandguy (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Modified ISA[edit]

The 2nd block of text under "Modified ISA" is a direct copy-paste job from the website of the advocacy group that is promoting this particular modification of the ISA symbol. The Modified ISA section as a whole also struggles to comply with Wikipedia's NPoV guideline, as it talks exclusively about this particular modified version, and almost exclusively about how the traditional symbol is bad and how this particular modified version is good. There is nothing at all about other modified versions of the ISA symbol (here's one example that has gained some traction among a few municipalities and corporations: http://accesssymbol.com). There is nothing about criticisms of this particular modified symbol (such as possible confusion with wheelchair racing, that it doesn't do any better at representing non-chairbound people with accessibility needs, that the dramatic action it conveys stands out significantly from other standardized pictograms, etc.). And there is nothing about the illegal street art beginnings of this particular modified ISA symbol, where it's creators would go around defacing existing ISA signs. Fishbert (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)