WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C

for

From: zara
Date: Mar 24, 2006 9:40AM


> Seriously though, it's interesting that this discussion has arisen here,
> as we had a very similar one not so long ago on the Accessify forum; I
> also had a long heated discussion with an alpha-geek at work who
> insisted that, because a particular site didn't work well in Konqueror
> on Linux, he'd be able to sue the company responsible under the
> Disability Discrimination Act (so again the same "accessibility is about
> making a site work on all platforms/browsers).


I have read this thread with much interest as I gave a radio interview yesterday morning for a local station where I had to explain what accessibility was and what the difference was between accessibility and universal access (which may explain, besides my lack of coffee, why I was distracted enough to reply to this list while thinking I was replying to someone else). I get asked this question a lot and here is how I explain it.

Accessibility is related to how usable a resource is for persons with disabilities, regardless of the type of disability or the means to overcome or compensate for that disability.

Universal access is an ensemble of conditions that relate to : availability, connectivity, interoperability, affordability, culture (as in language), knowledge and training, etc., *and* accessibility. This is much in line with how the W3C defines "access for all".

Often, people use accessibility as an interchangeable term for universal access. It is not. Granted, accessibility is a subjective notion but it has clearly always been about persons with disabilities and long before the Web came along. I often say "say what you mean". If you mean availability or connectivity or affordability or any other term mentioned above, then just say it.

Can Web accessibility benefit those without disabilities (as in the recognized notion of what a disability means) ? Yes it may to some degree but it goes much further than that and is much more demanding in terms of skills and knowledge and costs ; I do not think I need to explain to people here how complex accessibility really is.

And although I understand that it can often be easier to sell accessibility by defining it more in terms of universal access, it is a false definition and ultimately could be a disservice to those whose needs it is supposed to address. It can open the door (as I have often seen) to picking and choosing how much accessibility will be achieved. Is a particular guideline or checkpoint too "specialized" ? Will it benefit a smaller number than something else that is more beneficial to a wide range of users whether they present a disability or not ? Well lets go with the latter because it is easier to justify in terms of investment.

We do not all live in countries where accessibility is a recognized right and where all these things are clearly or reasonably defined by legislation and codes. Some of us have to rely more on people really getting what accessibility truly means and wanting to do the right thing (and of course having the means to do so) which hopefully will lead to a recognition of rights and clearly defined standards.

As a person with a disability, I can probably be considered as hardly objective but I must admit that I always find it disturbing when something we have worked so hard for and so long for being appropriated by others in this way and our rights being conditional to what is convenient for "stroller-pushers".


Catherine


--
Catherine Roy, consultante

www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490