On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> one comment
>
> Your statement regarding accessible but unusable
>
>
> *I didn’t mean to imply that anything was accessible if it wasn’t also
> usable.* (I fight that every day)
>
> What I meant was - *it could pass “Minimum Accessibility Requirements
> (such as WCAG or 508)” and still not be usable. *(mostly because we
> can only level playing fields — not ensure that they are not under water
> entirely)
>
> It is important to remember that things that pass WCAG or 508 or any
> other guidelines - have just passed some set of “minimum accessibility
> requirements” — but they still will not be accessible to some people - no
> matter what the guidelines are. So things should *never* be referred to
> as accessible as a statement of status - just because the passed some
> minimum accessibility standard like WCAG of 508. (Though of course we
> commonly refer to things as accessible if they meet ADAAG or 508 or WCAG.
> Perhaps we need to change our language and say “ADA compliant” or WCAG
> conformant etc rather than ever calling anything “accessible” as a flat
> statement
>
> Gregg
>
+1 !!
Loretta