Re: Usability, UCD, UX, or '"Usable Accessibility'" TF and Extension

I also think such distinctions are healthy! 

Good thread 

Josh 

Sent from TypeMail



On 6 Jul 2015 19:08, at 19:08, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>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​

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 19:10:30 UTC