Betteridge’s law of headlines states that any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no. For at least the digital accessibility landscape, I would like to amend it, fork it, whatever it:
Any headline that asserts a thing is accessible is wrong.
Yes, that is a very broad assertion, kind of like the one that inspired it. And yes, it is not a true law.
Instead of calling out specific articles / posts / outlets / authors here, I’ll point to other stuff I’ve written. These posts either explain the functional limits of “accessibility” or they go into more detail about selected claims:
While some authors are well-intentioned, just as often they are marketing chaff from a corporate entity trying to separate you from your money in the guise of helping users. It turns out I’ve also got plenty of examples of those:
I suppose you could acronymify this law, which means you might get more traction adjusting it to Accessibility Law of Headlines, Amirite? just so you can say “ALOHA!” on calls. Nobody wants that, which makes it extra fun.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。