In about a month, I’ll be presenting my talk, What Letter Are You? An Alphabet of Accessibility, to the IA Summit. It’s in Chicago this year, and looks to be a fantastic conference.
Here’s the synopsis:
Every one of us needs the internet to be accessible. Our needs may not surface today, but they will in the future. Do we know enough about what accessibility needs look like — beyond the stereotypes of people with disabilities that we’re all too aware of? And how do we get from “I know my site has problems” to “I know how to approach them?”
This talk, based on Anne’s 2014 articles “An Alphabet of Accessibility Issues” and “Reframing Accessibility for the Web” will frame accessibility through the lens of 26 people who need accessibility considerations. It will cover:
- Four broad categories of accessibility needs that we must be aware of: visual, auditory, physical, and cognitive and neurological.
- Twenty-six people who need us to design accessibly. Some of them you’ll recognize as being disabled, and some of them may come as a surprise.
- An approach for designing accessibly by concentrating on the functional changes we can bring to our project work.
- Emphasis on keyboard use, images, and forms.
Attendees will learn about accessibility issues, both common and surprising, and leave with a framework for approaching accessibility problems based on what websites need to do instead of based on what people can’t do.
It’s the same talk I presented at World IA Day on February 20th, so if you didn’t get a chance to see it locally and you’ll be in Chicago, I’d be honored if you’d attend.
You can use the discount code ‘IAS18SPEAKER’ to take $50 off the final registration cost, and register at http://www.iasummit.org/registration/
On the 17th, I gave my first structured talk outside of the walls of whatever company I was working for. (I’ve talked quite a bit in the course of my career, but it was mostly for in-company presentations, projects, training, etc.)
It made me think about the question of exposure — that is, the things we do to make sure that other people notice us and our careers and what we’re capable of. For someone who works in-house their entire life, the sphere of influence is pretty much confined to the in-house work… but for those working in agencies or freelancing, the sphere of influence is necessarily much larger.
This week’s post is born from a conversation with a friend about how someone could believe what they did.
Morality is sticky business.
It’s actually a topic people have studied, which on one hand, no surprise, people have studied everything. On the other hand, I learned about the study of morality and systems of morality back in high school and it was such a bizarre experience that I thought it was worth writing about.
My job role is UX Designer, my career is as an Information Architect, and I love Design.
But really, somewhere deep inside, there’s still a fiction writer honing her craft in here.
In this week’s post for The Interconnected, I wrote about looking at exactly how many damned files one person can generate for one unpublished (and unfinished!) novel… and exactly what a mess I’ve made.
There’s a tiny part of me that hopes I never do hit it big, because I don’t want to hoist this mess off on some poor unsuspecting archivist in the future.
Sometimes companies go down a path that significantly alters the structure of what they do and how they do it.
Sometimes they do it well, and sometimes they do it poorly.
In Dismantling an investment market: Patreon’s fees, I look at some basic info about how investing works (because working at Vanguard for 16 years did teach me a few things about the business, even if I am definitely not an investment advisor and you should talk to one of them before ever listening to me). I use the models of mutual funds and stocks to analyze what Patreon chose to do with their business (and then undo) and offer my own take on why it’s just a bad idea.