On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Accessibility is an extension of usability to include non-standard
ways of
browsing the web.
Complying with WCAG is step towards accessibility. Careful
consideration
has to be given how one applies WCAG meaningfully.
Research has shown that Websites meeting WCAG were still found
difficult
to use by disabled users
Absolutely!
Though personally I tend to think of usability as an extension of
accessibility.
During the design phase I *try* to keep in mind, and in balance:
standards-compliance;
accessibility;
usability;
design.
In implementation I believe each of these levels is a pre-requisite
to its sequel, and that in turn each enhances its precursor.
A standards-compliant site will likely be more accessible than a site
presenting the same content using non-standards techniques, and
provides a solid foundation on which to add accessibility
enhancements. Likewise, accessibility itself inherently improves
usability, and opens the way to further usability enhancements, which
contribute to, and influence, design decisions that can further
improve usability.
And as for design, I believe its purpose is firstly to enhance the
functionality of some "thing" that people "use" for some definable
purpose in their daily lives, and this requires a different set of
aesthetic criteria than those applied to fine art. In the end an
"ugly" tool that performs its task efficiently and is easy to use is
*always* a better design than something that is hard-to-use and
ineffective. Which is not, of course to say that it's impossible to
combine beauty, functionality and usability.
Andrew
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
