1. There is no content that is accessible without qualification.

(That is, it is accessible to all

people.) Content can meet accessibility standards. It can also be more accessible or less
accessible than other content; however, there is no con-tent that is absolutely accessible
(i.e usable by everyone).
2. The only time one can talk concretely about some-thing being “accessible” is if one is
talking about a particular individual or a group of very similar individuals. Even then,
describing something as accessible can only be done if one can specify the environment
in which users are operating and some-times also the tasks they are trying to carry out.
Another important factor is the time they have available to complete tasks. For example,
you can say that a Web site is accessible to Joe, who uses screen reader x with browser y,
but not that the Web page is accessible to all screen reader users. In fact, the site may not
even be accessible for Joe when he is using another screen reader or carrying out another
task. All other statements of accessibility must be constrained to statements of
conformance to one or another accessibility standard.
3. Usability and accessibility are just two parts of a continuum with “extremely easy to
learn, understand, and use” at one end and “can’t be used” at the other. Nothing that is
truly usable by someone is inaccessible to them. Nothing that is inaccessible to someone
is usable by them.
4. Something that is only operable with time and effort should not be labeled accessible.
Accessibility implies that content is reasonably usable, not just theoretically operable. For
example, a building should not be considered accessible if a person must cross the street,
go through the parking garage to the loading dock, up the loading dock lift and then
through the kitchen in order to get to the registration desk—even though the person can
technically get to the registration desk in their wheelchair. Almost all of the measures that
we associ-ate with accessibility for people with disabilities have parallels in usability for
individuals who do not have disabilities but who are operating under constrained
conditions. For example, features that allow individuals who are blind to access Web
content can also allow individuals who are driving their car to be able to have Web
content presented to them audibly. Similarly, features that allow a Web site to be
operated by individuals who are deaf also allow the site to be operated by individuals in a
very noisy or a silent (e.g., library) environment.
5. The needs of individuals with disabilities parallel the needs of individuals (without
disabilities) who are operating under constrained conditions (e.g., in a very noisy or silent
environment, when eyes are busy, when in a bouncing car, or when using a small-screen
device). Another interesting parallel worth noting up front is the similarity between
individuals operating under constrained conditions (disability, environment, etc.) and
intelligent user agents. Increasingly, we are using intelligent user agents to wander,
search, compile, abstract, and otherwise locate or pre-process Web content for us. These
agents, how-ever, do not currently “hear” very well nor can they interpret pictures or
 complex layouts very well. Although this will improve over time in some areas, in other
areas (e.g., visual interpretation of pictures)

6. Many of the same measures that make Web content accessible to individuals with
disabilities also make them more accessible to intelligent user agents and those operating
under constrained conditions.