- From: Juan Ulloa <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:04:09 -0700
- To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
David Poehlman said: > So, in accordance with you can make it accessible and not usable, suppose > we > have a ramp that meets the atag requirements to have a ramp for ada's > sake > here in the us. Suppose though that that ramp stops a foot from the door > at > the top of it, How is the wheell chair user supposed to traverse that > distance through thin air? This makes this entry way inaccessible by definition. This is not about usability. > If I handed out > braille agendas at corporate meetings, how many members would see them as > accessible, yet, they can rub them with their fingers, see the dots with > their eyes. Accessible but not usable is not accessable there is no such > thing as usable but not accessible because in our case, usable is a > subset > of accessible and accessible is a subset of usable. I disagree. The Braille format is inaccessible to users who don't read Braille. I personally think this is a bad analogy. Would you make the same argument for handing a book on take for to a group of deaf users? I wouldn't. The beauty of the medium we are discussing is that you can have content written in English and text readers can read it to those users. You can also have an audio clip and (if you make it accessible) the deaf user can access its contents. This is about accessibility, not usability. Juan Ulloa
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:05:47 UTC