Thread Subject: Re: about the word usable
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Feb 14 2007 4:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: about the word usable"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
that's funny; i've been trying to make sense of the
distinction between *potential* and *actual* (as really
used by people), and i came up with "accessibility" as
the raw potential, and "access" as the actual.
From: Whitney Quesenbery [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:13 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] about the word usable
At 02:57 PM 2/14/2007, Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC wrote:
>That is, we ask the question can a person, regardless of ability, _use_
>the _function_ of the electronic information or electronic technology?
>To me, this is access. It doesn't mean that is necessary very usable,
>the use could be difficult, but specifically it should be possible.
A group I worked with once came up with the formulation that
access + usability = accessibility
I know this is not the usual meaning of the word - this was a group trying
to work through the very issue that Norman is talking about and clarifying
for themselves the different considerations.
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: about the word usable"