New website advises organisations on accessibility
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| As a matter of fact we are working on the video clips. It does cost time and money to produce the videoclips on top of other work that we have. |
Oh I agree, its just that when you set yourself up for these things etc etc.
So CACDP Level 2 Cert. in British Sign Language, is that available in Liverpool do you know?
Back to the site, I'd argue against the use of the WAI-AAA badge, but can see why you want it displayed.
Share: 
I don't, why set yourself up for so much criticism? Much better to have an accessibility statement where you say you strive to attain triple A standards. I still don't like the slant on accessibility being about disabled and blind people, hardly PQ.
Share:
I should have been forewarned that new members are not welcomed at first instance but bombarded with critics!
Assumption is very dangerous indeed. As a lawyer, I would not have a website built on misrepresentation and we only use web developers who know what they are talking about. I deal with the legal stuff.
I do not think it is appropriate to copyright an accessibility statement.
I think I have stated my case quite eloquently, don't you?
Share:
I think this is a matter of personal choice. As you have correctly identified why we need to do it. Our website is our portfolio and we must demonstrate it as such.
I can entirely agree with many of you that there are too many bogus websites/web developers out there claiming to be experts in their field. It makes me cringe. I stumbled across the following websites:
http://www.access-auditing.com/
http://www.ministryofaccess.com/
They claim to be experts on the DDA and yet their website is inaccessible. I have not tested them but I am sure some will agree that just looking at it will certainly fail the tests
| elfin wrote: | ||
Oh I agree, its just that when you set yourself up for these things etc etc. So CACDP Level 2 Cert. in British Sign Language, is that available in Liverpool do you know? Back to the site, I'd argue against the use of the WAI-AAA badge, but can see why you want it displayed. |
Share:
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| I think this is a matter of personal choice. As you have correctly identified why we need to do it. Our website is our portfolio and we must demonstrate it as such. |
I assume you were referring to my comment about the WAI-AAA badge.
If that is your reasoning for displaying it, then i must have been wrong. *sigh*
If we all used your arguement then the majority of all our sites would display it as well, even though it is possibly failing several level 3 checkpoints.
Share:
David
You apologise for your earlier post but you make no mention of retracting the email you sent to us directly where you asked us to remove the accessibility statement.
A few things to bear in mind:
1. What makes you think you are entitled to approach us direct to remove something that does not concern you or belong to you? You email has been construed as obstrusive.
2. Not appropriate conduct of a professional, particularly when you use 'Manpower' email address.
3. You 'assumed' that we have taken material that is unlawful. We do not have to mention any credits/copyright at all and that is a matter between persons concerned, not you. I recommend not to jump to conclusions.
In future I advise you to think carefully of your actions, which may be perceived inappropriate. Yes, I trust you stand corrected.
| David wrote: |
| My apologies for my earlier post.
I did look through the site and could find no reference that Malarkey had been involved in the design process. Unfortunately, I have come across so many sites where people have tried to pass information, articles, etc as their own. Again, I stand corrected. Dave |
Share:
Elfin
I accept your comments regarding the WAI AAA badge. There will always be advantages and disadvantages in displaying the WAI badges. We may well remove it next time we build the website.
Even if it does fail one or two, its not legally-binding with WAI. Using the WAI has some marketing advantages too.
| elfin wrote: | ||
I assume you were referring to my comment about the WAI-AAA badge. If that is your reasoning for displaying it, then i must have been wrong. *sigh* If we all used your arguement then the majority of all our sites would display it as well, even though it is possibly failing several level 3 checkpoints. |
Share:
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| Even if it does fail one or two, its not legally-binding with WAI. Using the WAI has some marketing advantages too. |
sorry, but that struck a very awkward chord there. of course it's not legally binding...hell, i could have a site that is completely flash based and stick the AAA badge on there, and it's not legally binding. that's not to say, however, that it isn't false advertising or immoral. not saying that this is the case in this particular instance, but nonetheless that statement above does nothing to add credibility to the cause.
also, i'm not saying that WCAG1.0 is the be all and end all of accessibility...but if you are (knowingly or unknowingly) failing/breaking a checkpoint of the WCAG level you advertise, then you may consider not using any WCAG badge at all, and just making it clear that you're striving towards a certain level, or - as i did on our university site - adding something to soften it such as "we strive for AA as interpreted by our web team" or similar.
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:
Ok here are some quick ones, these relate to WAI checkpoints, I don't intend getting into the arguement over whther they are still applicable today.
These relate to the main page:
http://www.handsonaccess.com/xhtml/Default.asp?PageName=1
Links: Related links should be grouped and skippable
WCAG Priority 3 : Checkpoint 13.6 [priority 3]
Links: Text should be unique
WCAG Priority 2 : Checkpoint 13.1 [priority 2]
(2 different pages linked by the same word - Consultations)
Supplement text with audio/video when appropriate
WCAG Priority 3 : Checkpoint 14.2 [priority 3]
(considering the subject matter then currently you don't do this)
If you want a more detailed report it costs.
Share:
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| You apologise for your earlier post but you make no mention of retracting the email you sent to us directly where you asked us to remove the accessibility statement. |
The email I sent was independant and seperate to the board.
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| What makes you think you are entitled to approach us direct to remove something that does not concern you or belong to you? You email has been construed as obstrusive. |
Until I was corrected, I was under the impression the statement had been copied without permission elsewhere. I have the right to contact who I wish. If I am wrong, as I was in this case, I am able to apologise.
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| Not appropriate conduct of a professional, particularly when you use 'Manpower' email address. |
I am working a contract job for Manpower at the moment, and sent the email from my office there.
New members are welcomed as accessibility is an important issue. Hopefully, we are all on the same side of trying to raise standards and awareness.
However, constructive critisism is important. None of us know everything and all of us make mistakes in our work. Accepting critisism in a positive rather than defensive/aggressive manner enables us to increase our understanding.
Share:
David
Your comments noted and accepted. Your apology accepted also. I entirely agree that we are all on the same side here with a common goal to achieve recognised standards on web accessibility. I am not a web developer nor do I present myself to be a web accessibility expert, we leave that to the relevant person, with that expertise.
I come from the legal profession so forgive me for insisting on the 'facts before approach' doctrine. Meaning, I prefer to get all facts before putting across any views, criticisms etc.
Lets all be part of a large family
Best wishes
Jonathan
| David wrote: | ||||||
The email I sent was independant and seperate to the board.
Until I was corrected, I was under the impression the statement had been copied without permission elsewhere. I have the right to contact who I wish. If I am wrong, as I was in this case, I am able to apologise.
I am working a contract job for Manpower at the moment, and sent the email from my office there. New members are welcomed as accessibility is an important issue. Hopefully, we are all on the same side of trying to raise standards and awareness. However, constructive critisism is important. None of us know everything and all of us make mistakes in our work. Accepting critisism in a positive rather than defensive/aggressive manner enables us to increase our understanding. |
Share:
| handsonaccess wrote: |
| I should have been forewarned that new members are not welcomed at first instance but bombarded with critics! |
To be quite frank I can't believe you thought it was ok that your first post was nothing but blatant spam. Do you think you're the only member here offering such a service? You're not. Do you they make similar spam-like posts? No.
Share:
now now Daz...let's not go overboard. if anything, it was just in the wrong category (now moved it to Commercial Events & Services)...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:
Daz
Keep your hair on! I am new here so I am getting accustomed to the website.
Spam, or merely informing others that we exist with an interest in web accessibility? Inviting others to give their constructive opinions?
Jonathan
| Daz wrote: | ||
To be quite frank I can't believe you thought it was ok that your first post was nothing but blatant spam. Do you think you're the only member here offering such a service? You're not. Do you they make similar spam-like posts? No. |
Share:
Exactly where in your first post did you invite others to give their constructive opinions?
Share: