- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:15:45 +0100
- To: Ian Sharpe <themanxsharpy@gmail.com>
- CC: 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'Jorge Fernandes' <jorge.f@netcabo.pt>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Ian Sharpe wrote: > this distinction by adding that accessibility does not imply usability There is something wrong with the standards if that is not the case. I would have said that usability was a pre-requisite for accessibility. For example, if it is difficult to understand how to use a site, you are probably making it inaccessible to people with cognitive disabilities. > and that when we talk about inclusive design or universal design we > should be aiming to achieve usability, not just accessibility. > > While for the most part it is true that compliance to WCAG is likely to > mitigate the potential risk of litigation under antidiscrimination > legislation and result in a more usable site or service than a site or This is one of the big problems now. Accessibility compliance is just another compliance chore that has to be done to the minimum level needed to avoid prosecution. > service which does not conform to WCAG, it is absolutely not the case > that the site or service will be "usable". > > The problem is that it is harder to test usability and as far as I'm > aware, the process cannot be automated. > I don't think accessibility can be reduced to machine checkable rules either. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 09:16:31 UTC