Talk:Design for All (in ICT)

Many duplicate web-accessibility articles; merges needed
Design for All (in ICT), e-inclusion, and web accessibility are just three of possibly bunches of articles that use different terms and different wordings to describe exactly the same concept: Disability accessibility in the world of IT (information technology for you laypeople out there). There might be a few naysayers who scream "nooooooo!!" at the idea of merging them, but I am a big big fan of weeding out schlock in pursuit of a better Disability section on the wiki, and I wanna know other people feel about taking the plunge and merging these and similar things into a single, better, tighter article. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WikiProject Accessibility also has an interest in this subject so I suggest we include them in the process. Roger (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Two of these articles are already fairly long already and have a lot of potential to be extended. For example, the French version Accessibilité du Web is much more detailed and complete because it was written by an accessibility expert.
 * There are also wide differences in their topics. For example, it would be a good idea indeed to merge Universal design and Design for All (design philosophy): those two words are synonyms. But design for All (in ICT) his high-level where web accessibility is a really specific subject. I would support merging e-inclusion into Design for All (in ICT) though.
 * Anyway, it would be great to have them better organized between each other. As of now design for All (in ICT) is not even mentioned in Web accessibility. Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kikodawgzzz, it appears I wasn't clear enough. Well, since I'm not a native English speaker (you probably noticed already) my poor english might be responsible for it.
 * At any rate, stop merging article that are not related. For example, if you did pay attention and actually read Universal usability, you should have realized it is completely different from Design for All (in ICT). Basically, Universal usability is related to usability. Design for All (in ICT) is related to accessibility. Those articles have very little in common. Dodoïste (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at some of your contributions. To be fair, I'd like to point out that merging universal access into universal design was a good idea indeed. ;-) Just so you know that I'm not being overly negative. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarifying comment. I'm not one to not steamroll ahead with merges and related editing that I consider to be improvements, and then to wait for others' reactions — it's part of what I do on here as a very active Wikipedia contributor. But that doesn't mean others aren't equally free to raise a stink about it, and to revert and/or relocate based on what they justifiably believe are better choices. Admittedly, I didn't really read the universal usability article before I recommended merging it into the Design for All (in ICT), so I trust you that they are different. That being said, other Wikpedians working on this Disability Wikipedia project should be sure to do their best to merge all articles that deal with the same specific topic but use different words in the article title to describe that thing. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. We'll just discuss it on their talk pages for a while. It's still a mistake, and it doesn't meet Merging requirements. But I suppose you're free to waste your time. Dodoïste (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it as active struggle between conscientious and constructive members of Wikipedia, not "wasting my time". But thanks. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copied this section (content unaltered) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability (same section title, may be archived later) since it provides essential context for this merge discussion. Please keep the discussion on this page. Mirokado (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Web accessibility vs. DfA (in ICT) articles
Web accessibility and Design for All (in ICT) deal with the same overarching topic and should be merged. I will do this merge myself in a few days unless there are immediate objections. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you insist despite my immediate objection at WikiProjet disability. OK then, I'll use another approach. I will remove this merging proposal in a few days, unless you can demonstrate that it meets Merging requirements. What do you have to say about the following quote?

"Merging should not be considered if
 * 1) The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
 * 2) The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles"
 * Dodoïste (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not "playing at" anything, as you allege over at the WikiProject Page. True, I am a take-charge sort of individual, but I don't ultimately insist on anything that is arrived at via consensus amongst a significant portion of editors (say, for example, the editors over at the WikiProject, whose opinions you should also solicit). I want someone to give me a clear reason (based on article content) why DfA(ICT) and Web Accessibility aren't essentially the same thing. When two separate articles deal with the same thing, regardless of whether one is significantly longer than the other (and rambling and confusing I might add), a merger should be seriously considered. Also, I don't agree that parts of DfA(in ICT) couldn't be merged with the whole of the existing web accessibility (which is already quite short), and redundancies removed, leaving an article that is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing to the reader. I believe integrating DfA(ICT) content into the Web Accessibility article would be a perfect solution. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sight. What was the point of asking the opinion of the WikiProjet Accessibility if in the end you don't care? Consensus is good. But consensus among editors who doesn't know a thing about the subject debated is absolutely worthless. I know you are acting on good faith and all. But good faith doesn't compensate a lack of expertise.
 * I agree that those articles are poorly organized between each other. This is the cause of your confusion, and it's normal. But being confused is one more reason why you don't want to try and make it better. You'll just make it worse. First, you should find information about the subject. Study hard. When you have gathered enough information and you are not confused anymore, it's the right time for you to intervene.
 * Again, the explanation is right in the article. "Design for All in the context of information technology". Now is "information technology" related only to internet? By all means, no. Information technology is about computers, digital medias... plus the internet. So know you should understand that Design for All (in ICT) is basically a wide subject. And in the very same article you can read:
 * "Web accessibility is an important component of accessing the information society and information and guidance is offered by the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)".
 * "Web accessibility" is a subcategory of "Design for All (in ICT)". Even more, when referring to "Web accessibility" we are almost always referring to W3C's approach: the "Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)". Different subjects indeed.
 * Now about the current length of Web accessibility: if I tell you this article has the potential to be very (very) long and detailed, you should simply trust me. Dodoïste (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cap for the section title for targeted links. Mirokado (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

oppose. The articles mentioned are all in need of improvement, but that improvement can result in more focused, larger articles which would stand in their own right (or might even need to be split further). Each will (or at least could) attract editors with different areas of knowledge and is potentially relevant to different project or work groups.

Here is a summary of the potential of each article, as I see them:
 * Design for All (in ICT)
 * an article related to the top-level topic Universal Design (which should have a relevant summary section linking to this as its "main article"). The scope is quite wide, considering the massive and ever-increasing impact of embedded and networked devices. Web accessibility and legal issues are only two of many potential subtopics.


 * e-Inclusion
 * covers the approach of the European Union to the achievement of "an inclusive information society". One can expect this article to acquire more content with time and become a subtopic of various other topics (disability legislation, EU legislation and Design for All (in ICT), for example. There might well be parallel articles for other legislatures (etc) with their own distinctive body of regulation, for example the USA.


 * Web accessibility
 * covers the issue of accessibility of web sites, being in this context the high level user-oriented interfaces to networked computer systems. The W3C guidelines are particularly relevant and have their own related article but there are other web accessibility initiatives and recommendations and corresponding organisations. Support for accessibility among user agents ("web browsers" etc) is relevant and probably not sufficiently addressed yet. Legislation will become increasingly important with time: this article will highlight a different subset of legal instruments from other articles.

My suggestion is to concentrate for now in tightening the focus of these and similar articles so that other editors with relevant expertise may be motivated to start contributing. That may well involve adding links and moving some content to its most appropriate home. As with all our edits to all articles, we should wherever possible add inline references for existing content and only add new content when we have suitable inline references for it. Mirokado (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mirokado, now that you break it down like that, the differences are easier to see, but my response to Dodoïste still stands to an extent. Dodoïste, you're basically saying that only the people who are already intimately knowledgeable about DfA-in-ICT could really know what they're doing, not only when editing it, but also just when looking at and evaluating it without ever having looked at it before. I'm sorry, but as far as I know, that's not the point of Wikipedia; the point of Wikipedia is to take something detailed, complicated and in-depth and transform it into something detailed, approachable and in-depth. General Wikipedians and lurkers should not have to understand the minutiae of DfA-in-ICT in order to be able to read the DfA-in-ICT article and get at least a general idea of what on earth it's about. Absolutely, one goal of Wikipedia is to have the vast majority of its articles be detailed, sourced, and if need be, complex, but those things ultimately mean next to nothing if the result is an article that cannot be read at all by the average passerby. I'll go ahead and leave DfA-in-ICT unmerged with "web accessibility" and other disabled-computing articles, especially given Mirokado's fleshing-out here which really does serve a really good purpose of ensuring we understand the differences between the articles and their specializations. But it should not have to take the threat of inappropriate Wikipedia actions on my part or anybody's part in order for relevant editors to come in and improve something. It's not as if a mother waits for someone to steal her baby before she installs a security system in her house, ya know? I'd like you and the rest of the WikiProject Accessibility that cares about this article to go in and edit and refine the DfA-in-ICT article to the point that everyone can see the article stands on its own and doesn't belong merged with anything else. Right now that status, much like the status of mainstreaming in education compared with inclusion (education), is somewhat ambiguous, at least to those of us outside the "expert" circles. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mirokado: At last a sensible comment. :-) I completely endorse everything you said.
 * @Kikodawgzzz: Sure I completely agree that those articles are not perfect at all. I was just trying to tell you that merging unrelated articles would only add to the confusion. Now about the WikiProject Accessibility: sure we should improve those articles. But don't forget this project is actually WikiProject Accessibility: we are doing technical things, we are not writing the content of articles. Our primary objective to improve Wikipedia's accessibility to the handicapped. I recently wrote What is accessibility? to explain what we are doing and what we are aiming at. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, I just made an edit to clarify the introduction. It's one small change, but it's an improvement nonetheless. Dodoïste (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, since this debate si closed I will remove the merging templates. Dodoïste (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Design for All (in ICT). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810002235/http://www.designforalleurope.org:80/About-EIDD/ to http://www.designforalleurope.org/About-EIDD/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Design for All (in ICT). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727145403/http://portal.etsi.org/mbs/Referenced%20Documents/eg_202116v010201p.pdf to http://portal.etsi.org/mbs/Referenced%20Documents/eg_202116v010201p.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.dfaei.org/deliverables/Del6.3a.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120527025938/http://www.mdx.ac.uk/digitalinclusion to http://www.mdx.ac.uk/digitalinclusion
 * Added tag to http://www.dfaei.org/deliverables/dfa%40einclusion%20-%20Del5.2.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.amea.gov.gr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126021738/http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign/ to http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430112600/http://www.project-diadem.eu/ to http://www.project-diadem.eu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115042822/http://www.ist-shareit.eu/ to http://www.ist-shareit.eu/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.designforalleurope.org/About-EIDD/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Bazen
What is the use of ict in designing    & It's benefits 196.188.48.64 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)