October Laws
Hi all, been a while since ive been here!
I was reading an article today on how the new laws coming into force in October (uk) and how websites should be accessible. You can read the article and view the company who wrote its website at www.it3.com
They claim there own website is a good example of accesibility, by clicking the accesible button you get to choose how you view the site. However the RNIB campaign states that having a link to a seperate or text only version of the site is not recommended.
So my question is, in the meantime do you think providing a link to an accesible version (generated automatically) is a good idea, or would you steer clear of it?
What suprises me is that so many of the popular content management scripts, and e-commerce scripts like oscommerce are not accesible, so rewriting these would be a nightmare. But providing a alternate version would be possible?
Share: 
that site looks off in Firefox. that's not an accessibility problem per se, but just shows that they haven't tested it thoroughly (presumably only IE/Win).
then, i get to the page, tab my way through the links. second link: fscommand:openwindow. aeh...what's that then? Firefox tells me that protocol is not registered, and even IE gives me a nice error page.
the rest of the site may be accessible, or it may not. frankly, i don't care, as those two things (well, the second one certainly more than the first one) have already made me leave the site.
as for the merits of having a separate text only site, we've hashed it out many times on this forum. the bottom line is: there is only a very small percentage of users who benefit from a pure text only site (assuming this is what they do...as i said, couldn't really be nothered to investigate it further, after their two issues stated above). if you code to standards and keep accessibility in mind, you shouldn't NEED to have a separate, segregated, accessible site.
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:
From it3:
| Quote: |
| The deadline for website accessibility is October 2004 when all points of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) become part of British law. |
It never ceases to amaze me.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
| dotjay wrote: | ||
From it3:
It never ceases to amaze me. |
Don't look too hard at some of my early accessibility blog entries
I was convinced about Oct 2004 being a deadline until the RNIB pointed out that the sections that are enforced are about adjustments to physical premises. I had to dig around the DDA and and the Code of Practice until that was corroborated.
If anything, the October 2004 "deadline" is going to be more motivational than explaining that law is already enforceable. If people get used to the idea that they have been in breach since May 2002, they are more likely to shrug their shoulders and say - well we haven't been sued, what's the chances of that happening to us in the future?
With the RNIB approach, they will ask nicely first anyway. Only when they have been seriously rebuffed, will they think about legal proceedings. So illegal websites will have more than enough chance to change before being sued.
The business logic will be to wait and see. I'm tempted not to point out the error of the October 2004 deadline!
let companies that are prepared to make adjustments do their work.
Share:
| Quote: |
| The deadline for website accessibility is October 2004 when all points of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) become part of British law.
The implications to those companies already present on the web are massive. Companies wishing to gain a web presence must also take this matter very seriously too as any website not catering for accessibility is liable to prosecution. |
Marketing scare crap. Once more a development company who's own site is not fully compliant seeking more poor mugs who are not aware of the true implications of the DDA.
Somebody tell me, as I must have missed it, where
| Quote: |
| ... any website not catering for accessibility is liable to prosecution |
Hang about, what's this I read?
| Quote: |
| Textualise has been created to enable all companies to meet the new requirements of this law |
It makes me so mad that some companies are using these scare tactics to push up sales. Why aren't they honest and say that they can help to comply with the DDA using a measured approach rather than feeding on the innocent.
Answers on a postcard please to Bert Massie
P.s. Not a pop at Isofarro, this was posted at the same time.
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
I understand where you're coming from, Isofarro. I too started out thinking that there was an October deadline. But it kind of makes me think "how can someone who hasn't researched the facts really credibly claim to be able to make websites accessible?" ... Like you said, it's not like it does any harm to have the publicity for Web Accessibility - I too have thought similar.
I sympathise with Mikea's thoughts - companies shouldn't use language which can be seen as scare tactics. There shouldn't be a need to. People fall for it though - they must do. And hire companies that might not know what they're talking about.
Having said that, I don't claim to know everything when it comes to accessibility, usability and interoperability, but I'm bloody well trying. I'm still learning, but at least I know I have the resources for developing a pretty good website.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
Follow the accessibility link and yes, it3 give you option to change how you view their site by selecting the relevant radio button - minus form controls. Why bother going any further?
Share:
let me just add what i wrote on the subject over at sitepoint
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1331027&postcount=20
| Quote: | ||||
the DDA is case law. only a court can decide if a text only version fulfills the legal obligations. i say no, because text only does not cater for the full range of potential disabilities. e.g.: does textualise create transcripts of audio/video ? no, it doesn't...so a deaf/hard of hearing person is still left with a potentially inaccessible site. saying that textualise solves all these problems is ridiculous, and dare i say it, false advertising.
no, because for most people deploying these text only versions, that's it. they feel they've done their job. keep their main site as inaccessible as possible, and then say "hey, we've done our bit, see? it's got a text-only version". it's not an intermediate step for them, it's the finished deal. text only *can* be a stop-gap solution, but needs to be part of a wider strategy for the full conversion of a site to a fully accessible, single version. the way these products are marketed, they do pretend to be the be all and end all. |
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 wrote: |
| Follow the accessibility link and yes, it3 give you option to change how you view their site by selecting the relevant radio button - minus form controls. Why bother going any further? |
in their particular case it's fine, but giving the impression that text only will solve all accessibility problems is dangerously misleading. as i said on sitepoint, tools like textualise still don't do transcripts of audio/video materials, for instance...so yes, they can be used, but only as part of a much larger accessibility strategy.
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 Guys,
I don't know if anyone remembers, but I started a post about this same article http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1509
It was initially published in Better Business magazine and I contacted the editors telling them in a nice way that the article was somewhat "error prone".
As a result, they have asked me to write a follow up, basically an idiots guide to accessibility (Many thanks to Mike for looking at it for me).
The publicity of having articles in magazines is great, but not when they are misinformative.
Share:
| dotjay wrote: |
| I understand where you're coming from, Isofarro. I too started out thinking that there was an October deadline. But it kind of makes me think "how can someone who hasn't researched the facts really credibly claim to be able to make websites accessible?" |
Quite. This situation should really be the first test of whether an accessibility consultant / service is credible, or just jumping on a money making bandwagon. Its easy enough to get this question wrong.
| dotjay wrote: |
| I sympathise with Mikea's thoughts - companies shouldn't use language which can be seen as scare tactics. There shouldn't be a need to. |
And unfortunately it rebounds on _us_ when it goes pear-shaped and results in further distrust to the web design community. We are the ones going to have to pick up the pieces - the ones who are getting to grips with the spirit of accessibility.
| dotjay wrote: |
| Having said that, I don't claim to know everything when it comes to accessibility, usability and interoperability, but I'm bloody well trying. |
It is that willingness to keep learning and keep trying is what separates the credible from the rest. Accessibility isn't a text-book subject - its more practical.
ugggg... enough preaching from me!
Share: