@Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can. It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a semi-meaningful way. This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used to access the app I am currently working on).
>From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest level of usability through devices they are using. That way we increase profit and ROI. Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.). My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even. Hope this makes sense. So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached from a clever, business angle. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz <thierry.koble...@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >> On Behalf Of Jason Grant >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > >>>> So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely >>>> inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets >>>> hired, then redo it all? > >>> Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. > >> @Thierry Koblentz >> 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know >> who we are developing for, > > As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your > audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the > other (because of a broken wrist for example). > >> otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. > > I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. > > > -- > Regards, > Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
