Talk:Accessibility

message: I've written what I consider to be a good article on Web accessibility, located at http://www.lux-seattle.com/resources/whitepapers/Accessibility.htm. 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)
thread_title:  External link? 

message: What is the justification for these two links? I'm at least half inclined to cut them.
*Macquarie Customised Accessibility Services, Macquarie University, Australia
* Web Accessibility Articles on eConnected
-- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link quality 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Cut as incomprehensible 

message: And if you read Hebrew, read the Hebrew version. It is helpful.76.202.224.138 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, look at the pictures on the Hebrew version! 

message: 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. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Easy Access" or "Easy access": either way, they now redirect here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Umm what? 

message: 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. 4.255.48.248 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accessibility" as "Comprehensibility" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Telecommunication and IT

message: 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)
thread_title: Test Accessibility: US-centric

message: 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 178.78.75.150 (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think tall 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Accessibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ahip.getty.edu/cyberpub/goldberg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You reverted my attempt to add a short description () to this page (it currently has none), noting in your summary that you like the Wikidata description () better. Unfortunately, the Wikidata description is massively overlong—per WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION, the target maximum length is 40 characters, but the Wikidata description is more than twice that. Please also note that short descriptions are meant to serve a disambiguatory purpose, not to be mini-definitions. Given that, I stand by my proposed description, and I'd like to hear what you or others think given the above, or what you would propose (within the character limit) as an alternative.  talk 10:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your proposal. Laurier (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

text: OK by me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: AccessIbility means that one can get something (money / supply issue) while AccessAbility means the differently Abled people can also access that something. Therefore the article's titled could be changed for clarity. (Sometimes a single letter means so much, e.g. the Homoousion vs. Homoiousion debate in the Nicea synod.) 158.88.16.2 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule of thumb, any supposedly cute neologism for disability, such as both 'accessability' and 'differently abled' here, should be avoided in discussing disability issues as they are rooted in the belief that disability and calling disabled people disabled are somehow bad. This is not a position supported by the disability community itself, as illustrated by the #SayTheWord campaign. 86.14.138.8 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility vs Accessability