For example, you see three sizes of the letter ‘A’ for adjusting text size, but it doesn’t work cross-browser. The site is offered with alternative contrasts. A text only version is provided.

If the site is properly designed not to be ‘anti-accessible’, then I think we should give more credit to the end-user to know how to use the tools of their choice so that the site is accessible for them, whatever their particular disability.

For me, usability and accessibility and two sides of the ‘good web design coin’.

Accessibility is the ability of any person, in any circumstance using any device to access content. Usability is the success of the user in completed a task in a reasonable amount of time, etc.

When considering the rights of disabled people, I use the term ‘usability by disabled people’. This is really what the Disability Discrimination Act is about.

Hmm… I feel a couple of blog posts coming on. Stay tuned…

I entirely agree with you regarding the disconnect between theory and practice. This is the very reason PAS 78: Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites was commissioned (by the Disability Rights Commission… and it’s free of charge).

http://www.drc-gb.org/pas

I think my beef is about the disconnect between what gets passed down as best practice and what actually provides tangible benefits.

With so many websites falling short on both accessibility *and* usability I would argue that in a situation where resources are limited (most of the time for most websites), prioritising usability is more likely to impact positively on accessibility than the other way round.

The cost benefit analysis with a lot of accessibility guidelines is rather lacking so it’s easy for the well intentioned to spend too much time on areas that produce only minimal benefit to the intended beneficiaries…