[thelist] Jakob Nielsen [was Anti-aliasing]

Bill Haenel bill at webmarketingworx.com
Tue Feb 26 11:12:01 CST 2002


> Usability is not based on whether people *like* it, but how successful
> they are at *using* it.

So you're suggesting that if I want to create "web art", I can use Flash to
present the art, but I should provide a universally accessible Navigation
system - a la HTML?


> >= Is it necessary for ALL sites to be as usable and accessible as
> possible?
>
> Yes.
>
> But - usable is in part defined as 'fit for task'. The Flash
> game I cited earlier is usable for its task.

So that makes it OK to use Flash? By this logic I could conceivably use
Flash to build the entirety of my site, IF my objective was to create an
experience for those who can use Flash and who don't mind attempting to
become familiar with a new navigational concept. So what about
accessibility? Oh, yeah...


> If the very point of what
> you're trying to do relies on a physical capability (ie it is not
> conceivable
> that it could be used without it), then it could be 'accessible' without
> supporting
> that physical ability.

So accessibility is relative as well?

With all of this relativity, I come back to a mutation of my question:

= Is it necessary for all sites to meet a standard level of usability AND
acessability? And if not, why not? If so, why so?

BH





More information about the thelist mailing list