I also think such distinctions are healthy!
Good thread
Josh
Sent from TypeMail
On 6 Jul 2015 19:08, at 19:08, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
>gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>+1 !!
>Loretta