Abbey's new website improves clarity and accessibility
Home / News & Resources / Abbey's new website improves clarity and accessibility
I got emailed this... disappointing...
http://www.brandrepublic.com/...
http://www.abbey.com/...
_________________
Stuff I do
******************************
Design: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
My book: http://www.transcendingcss.com/
Share: 
It's not great but I've seen a lot worse from a syntax markup point it's a mess though._________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
The major accessibility problem of the Abbey site (apart from the non-existant markup structure) is the Login button - it is javascript dependant. That strikes me as the antithesis of being accessible. "If you don't have javascript, we don't want your custom"
Its probably a decent example of how an inaccessible website can be made accessible, but certainly not, IMO, an example of a website designed with accessibility in mind.
Share:
Hmmm. Its even worse than it appears. What is with the idea of writing out static HTML in Javascript? Its no cheap-skate's server-side include since the Javascript is inlined.
The accessibility page is unnavigatable in a screen reader because there is no non-whitespace between the links provided. This is the damage/barrier caused by the lack of structure.
I guess the clearest warning message is the following:
| Quote: |
| Abbey has developed its own accessibility guidelines |
<rant>
Over the past few weeks, I've seen this particular statement the trademark signature of design agencies and organisations wanting to jump on the accessibility bandwagon, without really considering accessibility at all. The type of groups that consider an accessibility badge a prize, rather than the undivided and unobstructed attention of a customer.
There is no accreditation in self-accreditation. Create your own guidelines, but don't pass them off as accessibility guidelines and best practice - that damages accessibility.
</rant>
Last edited by Isofarro on 28 Oct 2004 01:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Share:
when trying to log in without javascript (by simply navigating to https://myonlineaccounts2.abbeynational.co.uk/CentralLogonWeb/Logon?action=logon .. which they could just as well have coded as a proper link, rather than a javascript dependent onclick event)
| Quote: |
| This site uses JavaScript for security reasons and non critical functionality. We strongly recommend that you access the site with JavaScript enabled. |
first of all...for security reasons and non critical functionality? in my mind, at opposite ends of the spectrum. and somebody explain to me what security has to do with javascript? aeh...nought.
will send them an email, i think.
also of mild interest, their accessibility statement http://www.abbey.com/... ... at least they don't mention being bobby compliant, so it's a start...
_________________
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:
right, sent a message pointing them to this thread...see if it stirs up some interest - or even a reaction?_________________
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:
Me too..._________________
Stuff I do
******************************
Design: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
My book: http://www.transcendingcss.com/
Share:
Abbey are not alone.
I recently had an email about another bank, www.Smile.co.uk claiming that their site has been made more accessible, usable and more secure.
I don't have the email with me to quote exactly but the gist was they have disabled the browser buttons and keyboard navigation. If you should happen to use the back button you get logged off. How thoughtful.
I dropped them a line to say that they surely must be wrong and that you don't imporove usability by disabling features that people are used to using. I got a polite reply that restated the original email but I've not taken this any further yet.
To be fair some things are better than before. It no longer spawns windows and it now seems friendlier to non IE browsers though I've not gone through it in any depth.
But you should see the way my wife swears at it when she tries to browse as she normally does!
Cheers
Kevin
Share:
Norwich Union have improved their accessibility. Valid XHTML and some decent markup structure (lists marked up properly - not all of them though).
http://www.norwichunion.com/
Share:
There branches are just as inaccessible. My wife & I tried to open an account with them yesterday, waited 20 minutes, found someone who came in afterwards being served before us, went to the Nationwide in disgust & completed all the formalities in less than 15 minutes with great customer service 
The analagy, mess about trying to access a website & you will find your users going elsewhere.
_________________
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| Quote: |
| Abbey has developed its own accessibility guidelines |
i feel the only way this self-accreditation would stop would be if there is a court case and a ruling on what defines an accessible site
but i'm not holding my breath
Share:
That's probably true, monkeygod, but the DDA is not prescriptive, stating that service providers must take reasonable steps to make their services accessible, but not saying how this is to be done. A court ruling would not (probably could not) define an accessible Web site.
The flexibility this affords is important. We all know of sites that meet a certain level of WCAG1 compliance but remain inaccessible to a lot of users. If a definition in law was given, many providers would do the minimum and avoid litigation, even though their services were still inaccessible.
Share:
LintHuman
| Quote: |
| If a definition in law was given, many providers would do the minimum and avoid litigation, even though their services were still inaccessible. |
In addition, "reasonable adjustments" under the DDA make it clear that accessibility is relative to the size of organisation. Your local corner shop owner couldn't be expected to pay for a consultant to advise on the accessibilty of his/her website, while a large corporation could and should be expected to.
Share:
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum