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

Re: the ramp to nowhere:

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:35:09 -0400
Message-ID: <011a01c48b0c$ecc776e0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>, <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

yes,  I'll go along with this, but the question is whether or not there is a
way to construct the content and interface so that it removes both potential
barriers?

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
To: <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>; <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>;
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: the ramp to nowhere:



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 Thursday, 26 August 2004 01:34:30 UTC

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