[Josh Grisdale]

Thanks Chris!

Yes, I totally agree with the idea of the access statement and fully describing (via words, images, video, audio etc) what something is – and isn’t – and then leaving it to the user to decide whether it is sufficient for their needs.

But I’m also interested in the use of a word. There will always be someone’s needs who are not met by an adaptation. Does that mean the word “accessible” can never be used? Is there a threshold (ie fits the needs of 65% of the disabled community)? Though, I guess that is the same as your point on quality… perhaps there are no answers…?

The biggest temptation (for me personally) is social media etc – not for sensationalism, but practicality. Twitter only has 240 characters, and there is a hashtag for #accessible but not #HelicopterWithALiftOnTheSideForPeopleWithLimitedMobilityButCanBalanceByThemselvesAndTransferFromTheirWheelchair-SeeImagesAndVideo hashtag ? And I’m lazy.

But I never want to leave others out, because I know it sucks to not fit a “standard”.

Sorry, rambling now…