(unknown charset) RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

Adam,
Speaking personally?
There is no such thing as an average end user save in the minds of those 
creating statistics.
There are hundreds of millions of people in countless locations all doing 
individual things on the web.
The most surprising and best enforcement of the Lynx browser I ever came 
across  was in the New York Times, aimed at people wanting to cut down on 
data use and bondage issues.  not a single reference to accessibility at 
all.
There are those who seek less clutter pages that load faster, clearly 
labeled items, etc..and as I understand things, wCAG guidelines provide 
that  choice.  across platforms, systems, and items used.
Which I hope helps everyone regardless of the body they have or the tools 
they use.
Just my thoughts,
Karen



On Thu, 9 May 2024, Adam Cooper wrote:

> “In lots of ways though, it's worth pointing out to naysayers that following WCAG also makes the UX better for non-disabled users too.”
>
>
>
> And what are these ways exactly? Level A success criteria are intended to have minimal or no impact on visual design and only a handful of Level AA success criteria could conceivably improve user experience.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:39 PM
> To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> WCAG is there to ensure anyone with any disability can have the same usability as non-disabled users.
>
> In lots of ways though, it's worth pointing out to naysayers that following WCAG also makes the UX better for non-disabled users too.
>
> Disabilities can be physical (unable to use the mouse), poor sight/blindness, learning disabilities (ensuring the user knows their position on the page and that things are clear) and many more. Mild disabilities affect a significant number of computer users, WCAG isn't just for a tiny few percentage of users!
>
> As to progressive enhancement, there is one failure condition in the guidelines that points to this, but it is highly contentious and I believe it has been under discussion to be reworked/removed.
>
> Many developers feel that supporting a CSS/JavaScript free website is not tenable today and, in fact, to follow progressive enhancement would be detrimental to providing the best experience for both disabled and non-disabled users. (There are also old school devs who still believe in it).
>
> I would suggest to follow the guidelines and use all available modern tooling to give your users the best UX.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net <mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net> > wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am hoping that there is a link to well anything, guidance material for example, that provides  wisdom around progressive enhancement design.
>> how, as I understand it, working from this foundation  creates broader access, can, in theory, get one closer to wcag compliance?
>> I am encountering far too many folks who either believe that wcag only applies to sight loss, or that it *mandates* certain tools must be used legally...and some of that comes from the u. s. state department.
>> Thanks,
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>