W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: the ramp to nowhere:

From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:32:15 -0400
Message-ID: <B239BEDED044074C8E2CCC3A9162F2A90A26D91F@swilnts804.wil.fusa.com>
To: <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>, <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I see accessibility and usability as intersecting.  It can be accessible but difficult to use, it can be usable but not accessible.  Accessibility is measured more in line with is or is not, usability is measured in degrees of more or less.

The rub I see occurs when trying to make it accessible with a high degree of usability for all in a single solution.  Simple example, dynamic navigation selectors are not accessible, but have a high degree of usability.  Adding a "go" button corrects the accessibility issue, but makes them less usable for many other users.  To be sure, go buttons [and ramps] are usable by all, but put some at a disadvantage - must make another click.  Before thinking an extra click does not matter, consider an interface where the user enters data hundreds of times per day and each time an extra click is now required.

Kurt Mattes



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Juan Ulloa
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:04 AM
To: david poehlman; wai-ig list
Subject: RE: the ramp to nowhere:




David Poehlman said:
 
>  So, in accordance with you can make it accessible and not usable,
suppose
>  we
>  have a ramp that meets the atag requirements to have a ramp for ada's
>  sake
>  here in the us.  Suppose though that that ramp stops a foot from the
door
>  at
>  the top of it,  How is the wheell chair user supposed to traverse
that
>  distance through thin air?

This makes this entry way inaccessible by definition.  This is not about
usability.


>  If I handed out
>  braille agendas at corporate meetings, how many members would see
them as
>  accessible, yet, they can rub them with their fingers, see the dots
with
>  their eyes.  Accessible but not usable is not accessable there is no
such
>  thing as usable but not accessible because in our case, usable is a
>  subset
>  of accessible and accessible is a subset of usable. 

I disagree. The Braille format is inaccessible to users who don't read
Braille.  I personally think this is a bad analogy. Would you make the
same argument for handing a book on take for to a group of deaf users?
I wouldn't.  The beauty of the medium we are discussing is that you can
have content written in English and text readers can read it to those
users. You can also have an audio clip and (if you make it accessible)
the deaf user can access its contents. This is about accessibility, not
usability.  

Juan Ulloa



**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC