- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 23:14:04 +0100 (BST)
- To: Graham Oliver <goliver@accease.com>
- cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Graham Oliver wrote: > > 1. Check with the automated tools. > 2. Check (by an accessibility expert) those things that can't be checked with > the automated tools. That's a false distinction. A check from an automated tool is meaningless if you don't understand the output, but is likely to offer a far more thorough check than a human examiner can do in a reasonable time. It's much the same situation as checking spelling, syntax and grammar. The difference is not in the task itself, but in the number of people competent in it (most people can fix simple language errors; few can make a decent job with markup). > I would class 1 and 2 together to mean 'Technically Accessible' although I > understand that I would probably be in a minority here. Most people would > probably class those as 'Accessible' Hmm, "Accessible" is definitely a weasel-word these days. I'll accept it in a context where it is meaningful, but if you want to define other terms - like "Technically Accessible" for "satisfies WCAG" (is that what you meant?) - I'll accept that. > On Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:33 PM, Isofarro > [SMTP:w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net] wrote: > > IMO, and I'm probably off-base, implementing usability could involve using > > Javascript to "guide" to visitor, whereas accessibility makes sure that the > > core functionality is available irrespective of whether Javascript is there > > or not. Off-base? I'd say that's a very nice conceptual example, with the proviso that the well-used Javascript you envisage could help accessibility too. > > (snip more interesting thoughts, with which I broadly agree) -- Nick Kew
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 17:14:08 UTC