Re: [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem

Claudio,

I love your label for the center viewpoint "Doesn't Suck".  I do think this
white paper is a "direction"...and I'm still not satisfied with the
"Optimized" name in the peace model...because I think it could be
misinterpreted to be ivory tower.

In a casual conversation...I think of the 3 points as:

   - *Dead minimum* - just scraping by.  May not be the most delightful
   experience, but it can be used by people with disability.  May result in a
   little cursing.
   - *Pragmatic Universal Design* - smart, forward thinking accessibility
   that creates a good (and even great) user experience for all people.
   - *Ivory Tower *- where you dare to tackle barriers that may seem
   impossible to solve.  I'm talking about really going boldly where no one
   has gone before.  Reminds me in the old days when I thought touch screens
   could never be accessible.  And Apple responded with, "oh yeah, says who?"
   and invented gestures.  Or, when I thought a car could never be driven by
   someone who is blind, and Virginia Tech responded with "oh yeah, says who?"
   and met and solved the Blind Driver Challenge.
   http://www.blinddriverchallenge.org/

A11Y Love & Peace!
Goodwitch

P.S.  I did purposefully select the word Optimized.  I was inspired by the
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration.  If you really grok the CMMI
model, everyone who wants to make sure they use limited resources
wisely...will not rest until they are "optimized" where "optimized" equals
being efficient and effective in your a11y effort.  Optimization is not
ivory tower.  Optimization is smart business.



*glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>   | team a11y lead
| 512.963.3773

        deque systems <http://www.deque.com>  accessibility for good

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Claudio Luis Vera <
claudio@simple-theory.com> wrote:

>
> I really love the direction this whitepaper is taking, and it reflects the
> experience I have in my workplace. Internally, I've been promoting a
> three-tiered approach based on similar standards:
>
>
>    - *Minimally Accessible Product (MAP):* whatever meets WCAG 2.0 AA
>    guidelines or keeps our organization from getting sued. (It's similar to
>    the notion of Minimum Viable Product in Lean UX.)
>    - *Doesn't Suck:* where you've made choices to improve the user
>    experience for accessibility beyond guidelines. For example, you may be
>    building a kiosk, and you've chosen better technologies like Voice UI to
>    deliver the same content in a way that's better than built-in
>    assistive technologies like Voiceover. This is more enlightened than MAP,
>    but still not very proactive.
>    - *Ideal*: where you have included disability use cases in mapping
>    your customer journey or early on in the design thinking process.
>
> Claudio Luis Vera
> Sr. Digital Accessibility Analyst
> Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
>
>
>