All three articles, Principles of Accessible Design, Basic Color Theory, and Redesign, address a central question – what does it mean for writing to be accessible? In Principles, the author indicates that accessibility is about making websites that typically require visual and aural interaction available to those who lack those abilities. In Basic Color Theory, the author relates that the brain will reject boring or chaotic color combinations, so in order for someone to look, one has to find a harmony. This author does not address accessibility in terms of disabilities, but in terms of how all people interact with color and what is accessible to people’s brains–disability or not. This is similar however to Principles, because many times in the article the author suggests that although these features help those with disabilities, they in fact benefit everyone. Redesign is about interaction of text and image styling and what makes an article or ad most accessible to read.
Thinking about it this way, its not really a balance between good design and accessibility; good design is accessibility. Both websites and print media deal with color, text, font, images, and whitespace. All interact to provide a message and deliver flow for the page. What looks good on one media might not on another – for instance, serif fonts are better for print, whereas san-serif fonts are easier to read online. But the ideas are the same: combine elements so that they help attract attention to your piece, construct the elements in a way so that they influence flow and emphasize message, make sure the elements don’t under or over-stimulate the brain, and in all possible ways make your work accessible to those with disability.
When we think of accommodations or accessibility, most often we think of disabilities. But people we attribute as “able” need accommodations as well. This is something we take for granted. People who have full vision capabilities still need spacing between words, sentences, and paragraphs to make sense of what they are reading. Sometimes color enhances understanding, but sometimes it can serve as a distraction. When discussing captions, the author of Principles makes an important note. Captions should be useful. It is so simple but it is also so necessary. For example, my campaign pieces are about poverty. If I were to use an image and captioned it, “boy in green shirt and jeans,” I would get a very different reaction than “young boy, homeless.” I give this example in an effort to stress that everything you write, show, or produce should have use. The easiest things to understand–the most accessible things–are the ones with the clearest purpose.
In essence, accessibility is making your work welcoming and easy to understand for anyone who might approach it. Accessibility, then, includes good design, which accounts for the reactions of the average human brain. We spoke earlier in the semester of rhetoric, and how it should be used ethically. Making one’s work accessible is in and of itself an ethical approach to rhetoric, making sure that the work is approachable for any and everyone who may want to (or need to) understand it.
I like the way you put accessibility and design in terms of a hierarchy here:
“Accessibility, then, includes good design, which accounts for the reactions of the average human brain. We spoke earlier in the semester of rhetoric, and how it should be used ethically. Making one’s work accessible is in and of itself an ethical approach to rhetoric, making sure that the work is approachable for any and everyone who may want to (or need to) understand it.”
I thought this was lovely, and a great connection to rhetoric. Good design–something that *most* of us respond well to–is one part of accessibility, but should not subsume it. It should be the other way around: accessibility means being welcoming to everyone, and extends beyond whatever consensus design principles exist in a given historical moment. Accessibility + Good Design + Rhetoric = Ethical Rhetoric.
PS, I can’t let go of the sans serif vs. serif mention you have there. We will talk about that Tuesday, but if you are interested in learning more about that now, check out the lesson plan with some links up at the top on why that might not actually be true!
Before I even begin, I want to say that I think this post is wonderful. My favorite part of this post is when you mention, “Thinking about it this way, it’s not really a balance between good design and accessibility; good design is accessibility.” After reading both assigned pages, I originally felt conflicted. On one end, I felt that pieces should be more on the basic side so they are easily accessible and understandable. On the other hand, the page about colors encouraged me to focus on the visual aspect of writing. I originally thought that it would be difficult to incorporate both. However, your post convinced me that they do have a great overlap.
It was a great point to mention that accessibility is not just for the disabled. I loved how you put in perspective that anyone needs appropriate colors, spacing, or fonts to get the most out of the piece. My question to you is that although you argue that accessibility and good design coincide, do you think that one is more important than the other? If so, does the answer change depending on the type of writing? Personally, I think accessibility is more important with digital texts, while good design is almost always important. Even in text books, I find them easier to read when each heading has a different color and pictures are displayed throughout. Overall, great posts!