Interesting that the discussion has focused on the definition and meaning of accessibility. To be honest, I thought it was one of those terms everyone sort of knew without really thinking much about it.
I say this because the topic of "dumbing down" architecture periodically comes up on here. Isn't that the same thing as making the architecture more accessible?
George, that's a good description. Can you apply it to some of the questions and just give us a few examples out there in the real world?
I'm really interested in the practical application of the concept and whether the thoughts behind the questions hold up, like inaccessible architecture being more at the mercy of the course being maintained a certain way, and the maintenance having the power to regulate the quantity of accessibility on a design that is supposed to be inaccessible.
Rich, well done. I would have called you an old artificer but Peter admirably laid that one on you. With global warming we should all be more worried about our wings melting anyway.
Regarding your points of art and complexity, I don't think GCA comes close to art either because art is separate from function and a course's first priority must be function.
So it is "design," and like all design must make accessibility a priority. That's the pinnacle of craftsmanship, which is what design is about.
BUT: if a golf course were a design, we sure do see lots of users fail to use it properly, and not just because of lack of skill. This gets at your complexity point.
So it is not art it is functional design which has as its pinnacle functionality which in turn demands accessibility or else why make a tool for example no one is capable of using?
And yet like a tool or an instrument that can be accessed by only a few, a golf course allows many uses.
And so to your point re complexity I'm not sure we are back to complexity wrought by a designer's limited capacity for design or the inherent nature of a course.
Accessibility can be regulated by a designer and is all the time - well, not all or even most of the time and what about my question of whether it's done less frequently today and if so why?
It's like making a tool that anyone can use, and then hiding another tool - or a separate function within the same tool - inside that first tool but which only a few can access, owing perhaps only to knowledge or awareness and not to skill level.
Does anyone remember our discussion of Simpson's application to course design of the legal / logic terms suppressio veri and suggestio falsi? How do these relate?
Good lit references that I need to think on but hasn't it been said that Do-blin could be reconstructed from Ulysses?
So even there art can embed design in itself, and be read at another level altogether.
Perhaps Hitchcock 50s films are the better analogy. They served a commercial purpose first yet embedded within them are probably two-levels' worth of accessibility. Out of Tom D's concern for protecting private lives we probably shouldn't discuss the deepest level.
Many thanks to all for the excellent comments! Maybe you could pull out just a question or two from the list and take a crack at it. And apologies if I've missed just that - reading on a 1 inch screen as I am does not provide an expansive perspective.
Mark