'"Usable Accessibility'" TF VS. Higher education

Hi Laura

Regarding the the 2 new proposed new task forces

   1. UX intersecting with a11y
   2. Higher education

I think the the higher education issue is a low hanging fruit. I think an
experienced WCAG person who is in the education world could fairly easily
identify issues and gaps in WCAG for LMS, Teacher/student bulletin boards,
etc... and come back to the committee with a proposed road map to meet the
gaps. My guess is that most SCs would apply, but perhaps some additional
techniques in an extension.

On the other hand UX is a huge field. I just don't see how we could add
that to our load. We have currently

-Mobile

-Cognitive

-Techniques (HTML, WAI ARIA, maintenence of current techs)

-Low vision

How are we going to take UX on? We are about a 14 person committee, all who
have full time jobs and do this volunteer. It took us 2 years to write 20
aria techniques.

When I speak with UX experts I have a great respect for their art. They
have a respect for mine. There are many things about UX that are beyond my
expertise and interest, which is how I can fill the gap between what people
with disabilities can do and what others take for granted. I recognize that
elegant design means better accessibility in many circumstances. In others
it means worse accessibility for some.

I'd rather address UX concerns within the context of the task forces
already set out. I'm guessing that there will be many UX proposals in the
cognitive TF, in the mobile and Low vision. I think through those lenses we
can propose some very good suggestions for UX experts to take into their
domain. I expect some of these will be best practices, but many will be
testable, and can find their way into the core.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
wrote:

> I also think such distinctions are healthy!
>
> Good thread
>
> Josh
>
> Sent from TypeMail <http://www.typeapp.com/r>
> On 6 Jul 2015, 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​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>