Talk:web accessibility

Added a citation. Working on improving the article or adding this definition to a relevant "site-acceptable" term. -AnonymousDDoS (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But citations are only used when the attestability (according to WT:CFI) is in question. Attestability is verified through WT:RFV. In this case, the entry has been nominated for deletion, which is different. When we nominate something at WT:RFD, we know the term may be attestable, but we're not sure if it belongs on Wiktionary for other reasons. 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations which show how the term is used are always welcome! It's not just existence, it's the nature of the usage of the word that counts too. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh of course! Citations are welcome either way! It just seemed that they added the citations to counter the RFD, which won't work... 17:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, check out the RFD discussion for this article. I responded to it recently. -AnonymousDDoS (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion debate
"Making sites usable to all people regardless of disability." Dunno what to say really. I feel like this should be at RFV as I don't think it means this, or at RFD because if you correct the definition it's SoP (the accessibility of the Web). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Making sites usable to all people regardless of disability." is what it means to me. See also Web accessibility and Google results for the term. Maybe accessibility: could be adapted instead, to mention access for disabled people. Siuenti (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems SoP to me. "Accessibility" is a widely-used term, encompassing desktop software etc., so "Web accessibility" is just that for the Web. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, accessibility doesn't mean "making something accessible" but "the extent to which something is accessible". Accessible backs me up on this, but if you two who know more than me on the topic think it does mean "making something accessible" then do add it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox. And even in the context of the Web, parties who use the phrase "web accessibility" also regularly use phrases such as "website accessibility", "HTML accessibility", and so on. —Ruakh TALK 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a citation from the book I found the term in. AnonymousDDoS (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep why? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't much to expound upon for this term. Honestly, I created the page rather impulsively, without any searching for an already existing entry.  So, I propose that we delete this term and add it to accessibility.  Additionally, the definition is pretty vague.  I will work on improving that.  Thoughts? -AnonymousDDoS (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Equinox: semantic sum of parts with respect to the sense of "accessibility" pertaining to software user interfaces. However, the "accessibility" entry is missing that sense, as long as its definition goes beyond the generic "The quality or state of being accessible", and accessible misses a suitable sense.--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not sure it exists. Something like "improving web accessibility" refers to the definition we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The current def at accessibility reads "The quality of being accessible, or of admitting approach; receptiveness." That does not convey the requisite meaning to me, especially the "receptiveness" part, but also the "of admitting approach" part. I do not know what it is for a web site to "admit approach" or to be "receptive". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, what I'm saying is the definition of web accessibility may be totally wrong instead of sum of parts. Or to say the same thing in a different way, sum of parts but using a definition which does not exist in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point; the definition "The process of making websites usable to all people regardless of any disabilities they may have" would have to be replaced with "The quality or state of being usable to all people regardless of any disabilities they may have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is an accurate definition. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A website using colours to make distinctions is accessible for a person who is colourblind, it sometimes just doesn't make sense (that is: in those cases it abuses colour differences to mark important differences in meaning). --129.125.102.126 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Gone. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)