|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/10/06 03:47
In article
<1147186014.716527.221180@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>"
<dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> Remember too that accessibility is subjective. "Usability" is
> objective. It's the ability for anyone (designer included) to use the
> site. "Accessibility" is the capability for different people, with
> different limitations of technology or personal ability, to achieve
> usability as good as the optimum.
Surely this is an unnecessary complication. To introduce 2 terms,
usability and accessibility? Why have so much baggage? They mean
pretty much the same unless you make them mean different things
by using them in different contexts (which you don't actually
have to do, either would be as good as the other in both)
There is the business of how easy a site is to use. This can be
judged subjectively or objectively in regard to a narrow group of
users (e.g. one) or a wide group (e.g. everyone on the planet
with a device that is made to access websites).
How to measure these things is a complicated business, true. But
any full assessment would take the widest possible context (all
possible users). And it would be judged on the ability of folk to
understand and use the site's content in as simple a way as
possible.
The complications are due to that the criteria for what makes it
easy for one person with one set of abilities on one type of
equipment are not necessarily optimum or even necessarily
compatible with what makes it easy for another.
The idea of separating style from content, making the basic HTML
have a consistency and easy to fathom structural meaning is a
modern idea that is consistently supported in this ng and is
about as good and general an answer as you can get in this field.
As for the details, that is always up for grabs.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|