W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2018

Fwd: [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem

From: Claudio Luis Vera <claudio@simple-theory.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 10:00:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CADR+Rv_axP1fsvfmBm=tHfUm_ArunC1Mvf3-uLePq=NRy5sTTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
I really love the direction this whitepaper is taking, and it reflects the
experience I have in my workplace. Internally, I've been promoting a
three-tiered approach based on similar standards:


   - *Minimally Accessible Product (MAP):* whatever meets WCAG 2.0 AA
   guidelines or keeps our organization from getting sued. (It's similar to
   the notion of Minimum Viable Product in Lean UX.)
   - *Doesn't Suck:* where you've made choices to improve the user
   experience for accessibility beyond guidelines. For example, you may be
   building a kiosk, and you've chosen better technologies like Voice UI to
   deliver the same content in a way that's better than built-in
   assistive technologies like Voiceover. This is more enlightened than MAP,
   but still not very proactive.
   - *Ideal*: where you have included disability use cases in mapping your
   customer journey or early on in the design thinking process.

Claudio Luis Vera
Sr. Digital Accessibility Analyst
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 14:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:37:17 UTC