- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: 2015年7月06日 20:09:36 +0100
- To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>,Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>,GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>,Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>,Debra Ruh Global <debra@ruhglobal.com>,Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>,Neil Milliken <Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk>,Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Message-ID: <bb2fbed6-8117-49d1-bd67-ad22e90dfccf@typeapp.com>
I also think such distinctions are healthy! Good thread Josh Sent from TypeMail On 6 Jul 2015 19:08, 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
Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 19:10:30 UTC