W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Accessible does not imply usable (was International Web Access Guidelines "Ineffective", PhD thesis Claims)

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <51AB0D41.9020902@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Ian Sharpe <themanxsharpy@gmail.com>
CC: 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'Jorge Fernandes' <jorge.f@netcabo.pt>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Ian Sharpe wrote:

> this distinction by adding that accessibility does not imply usability 

There is something wrong with the standards if that is not the case. 
I would have said that usability was a pre-requisite for accessibility. 
   For example, if it is difficult to understand how to use a site, you 
are probably making it inaccessible to people with cognitive disabilities.

> and that when we talk about inclusive design or universal design we 
> should be aiming to achieve usability, not just accessibility.

> While for the most part it is true that compliance to WCAG is likely to 
> mitigate the potential risk of litigation under antidiscrimination 
> legislation and result in a more usable site or service than a site or

This is one of the big problems now.  Accessibility compliance is just 
another compliance chore that has to be done to the  minimum level 
needed to avoid prosecution.

> service which does not conform to WCAG, it is absolutely not the case 
> that the site or service will be "usable".
> The problem is that it is harder to test usability and as far as I'm 
> aware, the process cannot be automated.

I don't think accessibility can be reduced to machine checkable rules 

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 09:16:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:49 UTC