"Experts"
I could be completely wrong, and if I am I apologise unreservedly, but it seems that so called "experts" are delivering the wrong message about accessibility.
An article published in Better Business magazine states:
| Quote: |
| Like it or not, come October, you have a legal obligation to provide access to your website content to people suffering some sort of visual impairment. |
I thought that the legislation relating to websites has been in force for a couple of years now, and that although there are changes to the DDA in October, they do not relate to websites.
| Quote: |
| There are of course websites that may not need this facility - these websites would be those with limited graphical design elements. |
Even websites with limited graphic elements surely would need to be accessible - things like including the <html lang="en"> for example, or making sure that link text makes sense when read out of context. Just because they don't have pictures is not an excuse to avoid accessibility.
I'm quite new to accessibility and don't claim to know everything but I think the author if this article is mis-informed, which in turn, mis-informs the reader.
What are other people's thoughts on this?
Dave
Share: 
| David wrote: | ||
I thought that the legislation relating to websites has been in force for a couple of years now, and that although there are changes to the DDA in October, they do not relate to websites. |
correct. october's deadline concerns changes to the physical environment (ramps, etc). although contended by some, websites are arguably already covered by the current legislation.
| Quote: | ||
Even websites with limited graphic elements surely would need to be accessible - things like including the <html lang="en"> for example, or making sure that link text makes sense when read out of context. Just because they don't have pictures is not an excuse to avoid accessibility. |
what a load of tosh (the quoted bit, not your follow-up comment of course). i can make a page with no graphics that is still very (if not completely) inaccessible. no mention of javascript, java applets, frames, use of proper structural markup? ridiculous.
| Quote: |
|
What are other people's thoughts on this? |
to be polite, it's rubbish. to be impolite, it's a bag of ****. any links to an online version?
you're quite right, this sort of misinformation benefits nobody. yes, it puts accessibility in the spotlight, and simplifies the issue for "managers", but it does more harm than good.
<sarcasm>did the article mention bobby, or text-only versions, by any chance?</sarcasm>
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
Hi,
the full article was published in Better Business magazine, but the author has conveniently put it on his website as a pdf, and can be downloaded at http://www.it3.com/Docs/Accessibility.pdf
from the article:
| Quote: |
| An example of how an accessible website may look can be seen at http://www.it3.com |
| Quote: |
| IT3.com will only create websites that have an Accessibility button provided unless specifically asked not to. |
I really think that the author doesn't have a clue...
Share:
Was this written by an expert or a journalist? (or an journalist who think's he/she's an expert?) Out of the context of the rest of the article it seems like a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Cheers
Kevin
Share:
A lot of websites preclude themselves from being accessible anyway, their first line reads <html> no doctype declaration 
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| David wrote: |
| Hi,
the full article was published in Better Business magazine, but the author has conveniently put it on his website as a pdf, and can be downloaded at http://www.it3.com/Docs/Accessibility.pdf |
It seems the famous Bruce Maguire has changed his name to Barry
More importantly the DRC had recently published a report on 1000 websites and are about to do the same again. I get the feeling this was cobbled together from other articles.
Overall yet another misleading article. Anyone fancy submitting a response to the magazine?
Cheers
Kevin
Share:
I agree and think that this was made up of other articles without any real knowledge.
I have already been on the phone to the editor of the magazine pointing out that while promoting website accessibility is great, providing wrong information isn't. He's (apparantly)calling me back.......
<bored>still waiting</bored>
Share:
Others may have seen this one before, but I think it's the first time I've seen it (although the eye on screen graphic looks familiar)
Not only do they get the Web Accessibility law bit wrong, they state that
| Quote: |
| The Disability Discrimination Act becomes law on October 1st 2004 |
They fail to note that its actually the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - 9 years to come into effect? I think not.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
Just read the it3 article. Nice to see the author is fully aware of the problems people with disabilities other than visual impairment might have in accessing the web 
</sarcasm>
Oh, and I'm really impressed with the parent site of the one dotjay mentions, at http://www.headred.net/: 'click here for HeadRED's web accessibility service'. The thing, is the 'click here' isn't a link - the 'web accessibility service' is. Which goes with the WCAGs, but isn't exactly intuitive!
And like so many accessibility consultants, their website isn't fully accessible anyway. Not just the odd error (which can be forgiven, we all make mistakes) but fundamental ones: no doctype, images without alt text (probably ="", but even so), and not even close to validating. Don't think I'd be inclined to use them, personally!
David, I look forward to hearing if you get a reply!
Richard
Share:
Wow, HeadRED are really cool 
no doctype declaration table rich design un-resizable text difficult to read font need I go on
| Quote: |
| At HeadRED, we didn't just rush headlong into design and software development |
It is becoming apparent that 'Accessibility' is the new 'Environment', a bandwagon to jump on to make money. All these "Experts" are offering accessibility audits, how can they do this when their own site does not meet requirements?
I'm sorry, I have strong views on this and If I offend anybody, well, that's just me getting this off my chest.
I hope that GAWDS members will prove to the recognised resource for Accessible web design. I have not joined yet, I don't feel sufficiently skilled to do so, besides, I'm only working internally at work.
Come the revolution we'll all ride round in Red buses
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| Mikea wrote: |
| It is becoming apparent that 'Accessibility' is the new 'Environment', a bandwagon to jump on to make money. All these "Experts" are offering accessibility audits, how can they do this when their own site does not meet requirements?
I'm sorry, I have strong views on this and If I offend anybody, well, that's just me getting this off my chest. |
*nods* I feel the same - incorrect information and unskilled "experts" affects how genuine designers and developers work.
| Mikea wrote: |
| I hope that GAWDS members will prove to the recognised resource for Accessible web design. I have not joined yet, I don't feel sufficiently skilled to do so, besides, I'm only working internally at work. |
With these sort of problems facing the Web Accessibility revolution, it emphasises the need for credibility. Being a fairly recent accessibility convert myself, I hope that being a member of GAWDS will help.
| saintstreaky wrote: |
| images without alt text (probably ="", but even so) |
They just haven't got an alt on "fluff" images it appears. They should be alt="", or better, background images.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
Hi guys
first time post, I'm the MD of HeadRED.net and you're right www.headred.net doesn't conform to the DDA standards.
We are currently in the process of converting our main site to conform!!!
We work differently to most Internet agencies as we don't offer a consultantancy but a conversion service i.e. we convert the graphical site into a DDA approved website (much like the BBC’s approach).
See current examples: -
http://www.aphp.net/apha/
http://www.eich.co.uk/text_site/
I'll be taking the comments on this board to hand and any further information you can supply about what were doing wrong, I would gratefully receive.
Many thanks
Liam
Share:
Hi HeadRED,
I'm sorry, but if I understand things correctly I think that's a horrendous direction to go in. It demeans the very point of accessibility, that one thing is accessible to all, and will dishearten all the web designers who've just caught onto the standards thing and will now still think that accessibility has to be ugly. That concept is nonsense and always has been (it isn't our fault browsers couldn't work out CSS).
If a company deems a text alternative to be absolutely necessary, they have either been missold on their main website's purpose (i.e. I don't have Flash installed so their business is lost), or they have been ill-informed about what accessible web sites mean.
If they still persevere with the idea that text-only rocks, then Lift's Text Transcoder or an alternative is probably the most suitable way to proceed.
To be perfectly honest, (and this applies to Lift too) making money from transforming inaccessible websites into text-only sites (which can still remain unusable) is a flagrant abuse of DDA fears.
Kajun
Share:
Welcome to the forum, Liam.
I agree with Kajun. You may find the following article useful: http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/AccessibilityOfTextOnlyWebsites
Share:
Thanks
I'll look into your comments and definitely review the links you sent me
Liam
Share: