From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External link?[edit]

I've written what I consider to be a good article on Web accessibility, located at I think it should be added to the article as an external link, but I don't think it would be particularly appropriate for me to add it myself. If someone else could please have a look at that and link if they think it is "worthy" (or comment here if they think not), it would be appreciated.

Lacking any comment after several weeks, I will add it myself. -- Jmabel 18:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article[edit]

The following recent anon addition was a bit POV-riddled and poorly formatted. User:DavidLevinson reverted it; the anon re-added it. I've cut it and am bringing it here with the suggestion that someone with more time than I might want to look at it closely and see if some portion of this belongs either in this article or in some other article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

In the United States the major cause of disability is due to an aging population. ( As science enables us to live longer and with normal aging declines there is at last a realization that we have a right to live as functioning adults without being shuttled off to a nursing facility. The economy of the nation can not afford to have those who have difficulties in every day life to be put away in an institution when they could be productive (and tax paying instead of tax supported) citizens leading independent lives and contributing to society in so many ways once modifications are made. It is noted that the total number of elderly or ( disabled persons is large, but each individual impairment area is a small percentage of the population. Thus, engineering and architecture first answered the call for modifications, but now a universal design for web site access is also needed.

The computer is a tool used for information as well as a source of assistance for the disabled. Technology has become an integral part of our lives whether one is young or old, able-bodied or disabled. To extend Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 from compliance by only Federal agencies to compliance by all private sectors as well seems to be a logical process. Universal design benefits everyone. Incorporation of this process should be a part of every web designer’s toolbox. Educators, commercial vendors as well as government agencies stand to benefit in the long and short run. For more information and sources for this topic, please see the links included below.

(end of cut material)

"Accessibility is most often used to describe facilities or amenities to assist people with disabilities, as in "wheelchair accessible". This can extend to Braille signage, wheelchair ramps, audio signals at pedestrian crossings, walkway contours, website design, and so on."

I don't like this section. The two sentences seem, to me at least, to be diametrically opposed. Acessibility is not limited to mobility concerns, as the second sentence indicates with its examples, but the first sentence seems to imply that. However, perhaps this is a matter of sentence structure/clarity. Perhaps the original writer could clarify? --Jacqui M Schedler 04:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I literally don't get what you find confusing. Blindness, etc. are generally considered disabilities, the term used in the first sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
True, but when people hear the word "disability," a lot of the time there is a tendency to immediately think of a mobility-impaired person. Putting the word "disabilities" near "wheelchair accessible" makes it a lot easier for people with this tendency to continue along those lines. Now do you see what I mean? --Jacqui M Schedler 01:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Doesn't have that connotation for me, but maybe it does for others. I'd be interested in hearing from a few people on this and on the connotations for them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Link quality[edit]

What is the justification for these two links? I'm at least half inclined to cut them.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded, I will cut them. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cut as incomprehensible[edit]

"From the act of Accessibility, the prevention of barrier are removed. This is why in Japan it is called "Barrier free". If someone can make sense of this and write it in decent English, maybe a rewritten version belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, look at the pictures on the Hebrew version![edit]

And if you read Hebrew, read the Hebrew version. It is helpful. (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Easy Access" or "Easy access": either way, they now redirect here[edit]

After more than a year festering in WP:PM, the "Easy Access" with no references was finally redirected to "Accessibility." If the capitalised "Easy Access" is a government-defined accessibility program, and a reliable source could be found to help define it, its addition would be most advisable. (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Easy access[edit]

Hi there. Easy access is poorly sourced, reads like OR, and is in serious need of love. I'm not an expert in either topic (if they're even seperate entities), I'll leave it to you guys. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have improved it with less than ten minutes work, I have left the merge tag although it seems pointless if no-one cared enough to properly discuss it or boldly merge (rather than summarily delete) it the first time in a year. I would suggest if you don't know how to improve articles, you shouldn't be tagging articles as poor or moving them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the maintenance templates are there to help attract the attention of other editors to improve the article. By removing them and not addressing the problems they present, the net result is exactly the point you're bringing up: the article lies fallow. We have to consider what's best for the reader. Accessibility is well-sourced, contains the same information, and is the most common term for what Easy access seems to be describing.
Also keep in mind that we administrators don't simply come along and summarily delete articles. We try to find the best course of action for achieving the best result for the encyclopedia; and, in this case, I feel that it would be better to bring whatever content is missing from here over from there, then redirect the article here. The net result is that everybody wins. --slakrtalk / 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, as far as I am aware, and have clarified with the edit and sourcing, an Easy Access (caps) product or service is one that has features or design to provide accessibility. The terms are related and thus can be merged, but they are not interchangable. You can't board an 'Accessibility bus', or buy an 'Accessibility stair lift', or design an 'Accessibility building'. They are Easy Access, or Accessible, things or services. MickMacNee (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that "Easy Access" means that it's Accessible? --slakrtalk / 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so are you going to rename the article Accessible? MickMacNee (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, MickMacNee, none of the five citations helped the cause as they failed to define what "Easy Access" (with a capital A) actually is. Is the term government defined, or is it a trademark? I'm sorry, but I have yet to find such a definition that can be verified in compliance with WP:V; so, until such a cited definition can be provided, I'll reinstate the redirect. It doesn't erase the article (it's maintained in the history), but Wikipedia policies must be followed here. B.Wind (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so are you going to rename the article Accessible? – No, but if the two terms mean the same thing, as you claim, then a redirect will suffice. I happen to agree, and as B.Wind states, until we have verifiable sources to state otherwise, I support the redirect to this article. --slakrtalk / 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm what?[edit]

The different sections in this article have nothing to do with each other. This article should be split into separate articles and a dab page.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Accessibility" as "Comprehensibility"[edit]

The subject of the article also is used in terminology as "that book is not very accessible", or "that philosophy is rather inaccessible" and are both ways in which the term is used to mean that something is hard to comprehend or requires an erudite mind to easily understand the contents of. This meaning should be touched on as a synonym with a link to an article of such meaning. (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey all, as of February 2008, WebXact hasn't been freely available. IBM is developing it as another product and charging $1500 for it. :( Maybe add Cynthia Says?

. . . proprietary vendors - they don't want it accessible - they just want more money (eyeing the governmental attentions and facilitations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:37 29 September 2009‎

Telecommunication and IT[edit]

I've added some material to cover the IT area of the article a little more thoroughly.Nanoatzin (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to re-instate Macquarie University Accessibility Services [1] to the links section. I see it was deleted in 2006 under it's old name MCAS, which is now MQAS. I am running MQAS's online, so would like to have a link here to the blog (which on-links to the Uni). We are also preparing a 'history' and basic information page for MQAS as a page, as we provide accessibility services and support to education and other organisations around the world. We are also working with the Liberated Learning Constortium, a group of Universities and software developers such as Microsoft on the development of additional voice models and more. We would like to assist in maintaining both the accessibility page and develop an MQAS page.

Vormamim (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Test Accessibility: US-centric[edit]

The second paragraph of this section is entirely about the situation in the US, without directly stating that it's just about the US. The third paragraph has this problem to a lesser extent. I think this sub-topic should be included, but it should describe things in general, or situations in each country separately. If people know about the situation in other countries, it would be great if that's added. The Mackstar 23:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for sections to add?[edit]

I'm planning on adding some stuff, and was thinking Education and accessibility should be added. Also Communication in general (placed in the article so that it leads into the Telecommunications section...) . Public events, and public spaces too. Accessible recreation... What else is missing from this article that I can add? I need some suggestions... OttawaAC (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility and Employment; Recreation (including accessible tourism); what else? OttawaAC (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth merging Accessible_tourism in? At least as a summary section...?Fayedizard (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not encourage merging it. This article is getting long already, I believe it is a good idea to keep details into specific article. But a summary would be great, sure.
As a side note, I maintain my pledge to donate 50$ to the WMF if this article is brought to GA status. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the accessibility and housing info in the article goes into a bit too much detail for a "summary style" core article like this one, and it should probably be mostly branched off into its own standalone article. I'll add a summary of accessible tourism pointing to the main article too. I plan to add a few more subsections, like recreation, education, and employment, and I want to make it a bit more balanced in including info about the 'global south' too, not just the West. OttawaAC (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Think tall[edit]

ATMs at knee height. No leg room in air planes, theatres, cinemas, buses, economic cars. Low chairs and tables in the office. Low sofas and chairs for home. Low furniture hurting the back. Small print on lowest shelves in shops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Accessibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Circular link[edit]

The link to WP:ACCESSIBILITY at the top of the article points to this article. That is, it is a circular link, because the page points to itself. Was there ever a separate Wikipedia guide page on this topic that was merged into his article? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hydrargyrum, it actually links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which is the guidance on the accessibility of Wikipdia itself. I removed the nowiki from the link in your post so that it would actually work. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dodger67: — No, it doesn't. When I click on WP:ACCESSIBILITY, it takes me to Accessibility. The former is just a redirect. So, putting a link to WP:ACCESSIBILITY at the top of the Accessibility article is rather pointless. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hydrargyrum, I have no idea why you're getting that result, I definitely get the MOS page - the redirect is this page, which clearly is linked to the MOS page. If that doesn't work for you then there is some problem that I can't identify, perhaps someone at WP:VPT could figure it out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dodger67: — Ah, I've figured it out. The redirect is to a page called "Accessibility" that is a subpage of the Manual of Style page, the same name as this article. The confusion could be avoided by linking directly to the target instead of via a redirect. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The redirect is titled Wikipedia:Accessibility, not just Accessibility, so it's really not a problem. A multitude of other non-article pages are named and linked like this, you've been here long enough to surely be aware of this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)