- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:38:38 -0500
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Debra Ruh Global <debra@ruhglobal.com>, Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Neil Milliken <Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Hi Gregg, I understand completely. Speaking of terminology, we will need some for content that conforms to new extensions on top of WCAG, i.e., "WCAG AA +Extension X, Y, and Z conformant." Kindest regards, Laura On 7/6/15, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > > >> On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Gregg, thank you so very much for the WCAG history and perspective. It >> is great to have that background information. Very valuable indeed and >> much appreciated. Your statement regarding accessible but unusable >> reminds me of Jared Smith's article from a couple of years ago, >> "Accessibility Lipstick on a Usability Pig" [8]. In it he states, >> "Applying accessibility techniques to an unusable site is like putting >> lipstick on a pig. No matter how much you apply, it will always be a >> pig." > > > Yes that was a memorable quote. > > > > > > one comment > >> Your statement regarding accessible but unusable > > I didn’t mean to imply that anything was accessible if it wasn’t also > usable. (I fight that every day) > > What I meant was - it could pass “Minimum Accessibility Requirements > (such as WCAG or 508)” and still not be usable. (mostly because we can > only level playing fields — not ensure that they are not under water > entirely) > > It is important to remember that things that pass WCAG or 508 or any > other guidelines - have just passed some set of “minimum accessibility > requirements” — but they still will not be accessible to some people - no > matter what the guidelines are. So things should never be referred to as > accessible as a statement of status - just because the passed some minimum > accessibility standard like WCAG of 508. (Though of course we commonly > refer to things as accessible if they meet ADAAG or 508 or WCAG. Perhaps > we need to change our language and say “ADA compliant” or WCAG > conformant etc rather than ever calling anything “accessible” as a flat > statement > > Gregg > > > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 18:39:06 UTC