WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Usability vs. Accessibility

for

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mar 23, 2016 4:27AM

Birkir,

I noticed something you included but didn't call out specifically. From what you said, it also sounds like you might consider something an accessibility issue (even if it impacts everyone) but it impacts a user with a disability more. IS that also the case? Of course, it would still need to be something that is related to WCAG.

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:15 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Usability vs. Accessibility

The way I approach it.
If the issue affects users with disabilities specifically, but does
not affect other users, it is an accessibility issue (missing alt on
images, buttons that cannot be operated via keyboard, missing roles on
complex widgets).
If the problem affects everybody, it is a usability issue.
For accessibility you need to think of an applicable usre story, wehre
a person with disability is more affected than a regular user. Also
you should be able to justifiably tie it to a WCAG success criteria.
As you have seen interpretations do vary somewhat, which is a product
of the standard being a bit vague in places.
Bottom-line:
If it is bad for all it is a usability issue.
If it is bad only for people with disabilities, it is an accessibility issue.
Cheers



On 3/22/16, Kelly Lupo < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Thank you all, this was really helpful in solidifying my understanding of
> both concepts.
> Sort of an, "if I can access it, it has some degree of usability." If
> content is inaccessible (a PDF completely untagged will have nothing read
> to a totally blind person, for example), then it is also completely
> unusable for that person. If it is accessible, but the tags aren't in some
> kind of logical order, then it is still unusable, even though I can
> theoretically spend 12 days trying to piece together the content into some
> semblance of order, if I *really* had to...
>
> As a preface, I'm in the special education field now, after being in PC
> repair/server administration for ~10 years.
> My current analogy is that I can separate Universal Design for Learning
> (UDL) from assistive technology (AT) in terms of teaching, but not
> necessarily for student learning. Basically, one form of UDL is better
> lesson design catering to different types of learning and the inclusion of
> a students AT in better ways within the lesson structure. However, is it
> this better set of strategies, or is it the device itself, that is
> promoting better learning for the student with a disability? Both affect
> each other: I can clearly say that the AT device (lets say a communications
> device) allows the student to participate, which facilitates asking
> questions to promote understanding, as well as participation which allows
> for reinforcing and applying concepts. The better lesson and class
> structure (UDL) strategies (IE: presenting information in different ways,
> possibly in other languages or reading levels, or other strategies such as
> chunking, etc) also allows the student to participate - but when it
> incorporates the advantages given by the AT device, it becomes even better
> for that particular learner.
>
> I guess I might just be one of those people who have to have concrete
> definitions for everything! :) (Even if they are intertwined concepts.)
>
> Slightly off-topic: I have taken several C++ and Java courses (~15 years
> ago) as an undergrad, and accessibility just wasn't a thing - but this
> could probably be expected from a small non-progressive college only 3+
> years after WCAG 1.0 had come out. I wonder if it's any better now in
> terms of courses giving information about these standards (WCAG/Section
> 508) in addition to "best practices" in terms of code validation?
>
> The initial question was as a result of attempting to create an
> introductory (undergraduate) college course that focuses more on the
> accessibility side (IE: guidelines/regulations and basic programming in CSS
> on how to fulfill them - as opposed to a typical "how to program" course),
> based on what I have learned in the creation of the ECPC <http://ecpcta.org>;
> website for work. (I realize there are still some questionable things on
> that site - like the calendar popup not being read by screen readers, but I
> do not have full access to Wordpress/Aurora for fixing things like this.)
> Basically, I would love to marry my former love of IT to special
> education, and offer the perspective of how things (such as how we program
> a site) can affect people with disabilities.
>
> That said, I realize that the business end often just doesn't care, but
> perhaps grabbing college kids early might make some small difference...? I
> have no idea if universities will entertain the idea, but I often find that
> documenting things in this manner - essentially teaching others - often
> helps me learn and retain information as well. :) (And if I can get my
> university to let me offer it as a pilot, I'll have something else to put
> on a CV when I finish my graduate degree!)
>
> Again, I much appreciate everyone's examples and explanations!
> Kelly
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:43 PM, James A. < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> I consider usability as a sub-set of accessibility as well as the other
>> way around. It is perfectly possible to have materials that are
>> technically
>> accessible but unusable to all but a highly experienced assistive
>> technology user. For example, when a large number of new shortcut keys
>> have
>> to utilised to access functionality; the limited up-take of ARIA controls
>> by users. Similarly many disabled users are not using assistive technology
>> but cognitive demands of complex interfaces and content can make sites in
>> accessible.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Abi James
>> University of Southampton
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: _mallory [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
>> Sent: 22 March 2016 17:53
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Usability vs. Accessibility
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 03:49:06PM -0400, Chagnon | PubCom.com wrote:
>> > Personally, I think it's impossible to separate accessibility from
>> usability. One without the other is complete failure to communicate.
>>
>> Personally I agree. I find this related to the two definitions I find of
>> "accessibility" for digital-- there's the one that focuses solely on
>> physical disabilities, and the Tim Berners-Lee hippy-view of "works on as
>> many devices in as many places for as many people as reasonably possible."
>> Some people call this last one a sort of #allLivesMatter so I tend to add
>> to it "But with particular emphasis and thought on those with physical
>> disabilities since the usability and (device/network/etc) access problems
>> hit these folks disproporionally harder."
>>
>> It's for this reason that I'll personally, mentally put Progressive
>> Enhancement in as an accessibility-related topic, while understanding that
>> most other people in this space will say things like "Javascript running
>> has nothing to do with disabilities." I find this is a bit of an attitude
>> from developers that honestly has the very same roots as the attitude
>> other
>> developers have about disabled users. Building for as many users as
>> possible means just that and it is an excellent start for building
>> "accessibly for those with physical disabilites." Building for more
>> devices
>> instead of only iPhones and latest-and-greatest browsers doesn't just
>> assist the poor or people with less access to newer devices-- it also
>> automatically works better or those held to particular, maybe
>> less-standard
>> devices due to disability or AT software demands as well. One feeds and
>> influences the other.
>>
>> I'm particularly thinking of this a lot when I need to build any scripted
>> aria-ised widgets. I really cannot allow something to come through to a
>> user with roles set on it in the HTML if something stopped, blocked, or
>> mangled the Javascript necessary to make those roles have any useful
>> meaning. So I prefer to let JS set the roles and states, and let CSS style
>> based on the presence of the roles, so if somehing didn't come through,
>> users aren't left in some half-state of nothing-works.
>>
>> If I can't use it, it's not accessible to me. If I can use it, it is
>> accessible, but perhaps difficult and frustrating. If I can use it, use it
>> easily and without too much thought, it's both accessible and usable.
>>
>> So some people take accessibility to be the binary (it can be accessed or
>> not) and usability to describe *how* well it can be used. ...Usability as
>> an extension of describing the accessibility of the site/app/whatever.
>>
>> Sorry for the ramble.
>> _mallory
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.