Badges - we don't need no stinking badges (or do we?)
Home / Legal Issues & Web Standards / Badges - we don't need no stinking badges (or do we?)
I've been thinking about accessibility badges, had a little guilt trip, thought again and since I'm still nowhere closer to an answer thought I would court opinion.
The use of these badges crops up occasionally here. It's normally in a bad light where an agency / site claims to have an accessible site when normally at a glimpse it's clear that it isn't. So ignoring those types of company, and concentrating on sites that have been made accessible...
Should badges be used?
The marketing aspect of this is clear, if you've got it flaunt it. As a design agency when people look towards accessible design we should both practise what we preach and say clearly that we do so.
Red Ant for example does have the triple A badge on the site, and whilst we have gone through the points, done automated testing, done manual testing, done code review, done screen reader review, etc. etc. etc. there are more than 100 pages there and I am sure that there will be a mistake or two over the site. In fact there were a while back when Isofarro pointed them out in his blog.
So in that instance should we remove the badge using our technical concience (marketing will say no), since we might not be 100% there? And which should win out, marketing or technical?
Any thoughts?
_________________
Red Ant
Share: 
the w3c badge is supposed to be used on pages thast are valid, not for the entire site. Yet the use of the AAA badge seems to be taken as for the entire site.
I personally don't like seeing AAA claimed, it makes me want to go and check the site
in most cases they fail even automated testing...
Share:
| elfin wrote: |
| in most cases they fail even automated testing... |
True, but we weren't going to discuss those sites
Agreed with making me want to go to a site. A badge isn't, and knowing vaguely what is required I'm not likely to believe the badge until I have a flick through of the source, but I'm not my target market.
_________________
Red Ant
Share:
Here's my relatively novice point of view…
My first thoughts would be - if we are being commissioned to produce sites which are compliant with AA or AAA standards, then the testing should presumably be exhaustive enough to ensure that all pages produced under that commission should meet those standards.
For sites where databases and server-side, dynamic output may be in use, I would imagine that much of the leg-work can be done by ensuring that such systems output accessible, semantically structured markup which, in conjunction with well-considered site-wide css, would feed across to all sites to establish a certain foundation of accessibility.
I also feel that the same exhaustive tests should be applied to our own sites if we wish to represent our own sites and our professional output as being AA or AAA compliant.
Once AA or AAA compliancy has been established and verified, then I see no real reason not to use the badges to promote that fact.
Although I don't actually use badges as a matter of course myself, I can certainly see them as having value in promoting awareness of various issues amongst website users, website authors and website commissioners.
Once issue I do have with badges…
Many badges simply point to esoteric validation pages, which whilst being mildly interesting to other web authors, make very little sense to others.
Imho, it would be better if they, including the various css and xhtml badges that are in circulation, were to point to pages which explained the issue (in brief and simple - yet unpatronising - terms) as well as the value of compliancy, rather than simply demonstrating the claim in some obscure, technical manner, which is what most of them tend to do at present.
(I actually had such a page/site in mind, which could be used as a communal resource, and registered an appropriate domain name for it, but like so many other side-projects, it's been sitting on the back burner for over a year :shame-on-me: )
Share:
| Bill Posters wrote: |
|
Once issue I do have with badges… Many badges simply point to esoteric validation pages, which whilst being mildly interesting to other web authors, make very little sense to others. Imho, it would be better if they, including the various css and xhtml badges that are in circulation, were to point to pages which explained the issue (in brief and simple - yet unpatronising - terms) as well as the value of compliancy, rather than simply demonstrating the claim in some obscure, technical manner, which is what most of them tend to do at present. |
I agree with this as to most users the badges make no sense, it does not matter if they used, designers and developers can judge it by the code
you could say that if part of a page makes no sense it does not reach single A compliance under checkpoint 14.1
you should try to think how the end user sees the site
I personally would not use the badges
Share:
| Bill Posters wrote: |
| Many badges simply point to esoteric validation pages, which whilst being mildly interesting to other web authors, make very little sense to others.
Imho, it would be better if they, including the various css and xhtml badges that are in circulation, were to point to pages which explained the issue (in brief and simple - yet unpatronising - terms) as well as the value of compliancy, rather than simply demonstrating the claim in some obscure, technical manner, which is what most of them tend to do at present. |
The approach I take was actually inspired by Malarkey, and his article on badges. I tend to use a small badge that links to a statement on Web Standards, and another to link to an Accessibility Statement. No matter what "stage" of accessible design your site is at, you can just tweak your statements to refect it.
_________________
Jon Gibbins :// blogs at dotjay.co.uk, works with Analog.
Share:
| monkeygod wrote: |
| I agree with this as to most users the badges make no sense, it does not matter if they used, designers and developers can judge it by the code
you could say that if part of a page makes no sense it does not reach single A compliance under checkpoint 14.1 |
I don't see that as a checkpoint issue - certainly not grounds for a checkpoint failure.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having something esoteric on the page, but it is certainly better to then provide a link to an explanation, which is the point I was promoting.
If we were to simply fail sites on the basis that certain parts 'make no sense' (to the average, non-technical user), then we condemn a whole range of technical sites out of hand, as non-specialists are bound not to know what much of their content means.
I doubt that was ever the intention of the accessibility movement.
Just because a site (or site element) doesn't make sense to every user (presumably regardless of their mental faculties), it does not mean that it does not make sense to someone. In so much that the knowledge required to understand it may be specialist, it does not not make sense - so would be unlikely to fail on the checkpoint you cite.
Share:
| Bill Posters wrote: |
| If we were to simply fail sites on the basis that certain parts 'make no sense' (to the average, non-technical user), then we condemn a whole range of technical sites out of hand, as non-specialists are bound not to know what much of their content means.
I doubt that was ever the intention of the accessibility movement. |
these sites could be accessible as checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.
and adding a badge may be unclear content , it does not add to understanding of the site for most users
Share:
It's all gone a bit foggy mountain_________________
Red Ant
Share:
[ot]
| monkeygod wrote: |
| these sites could be accessible as checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.
and adding a badge may be unclear content , it does not add to understanding of the site for most users |
I wouldn't consider a technical 'merit' badge to compromise efforts towards 'clearest and simplest'.
The badges themselves are as clear as can be expected given that it's a merit badge and not an explanation in itself.
Besides, there are plenty of fall-backs to ensure that the badges communicate the essentials within the site itself - namely alt, title and longdesc attributes.
I believe there is sufficient room for common sense within the interpretation of 'clearest and simplest'. If there weren't, the use of icons or pictograms would immediately render a website's accessibility suspect - if not fail it outright.
I personally reject the notion that because an element does not make clear sense to all or most users, it is without sense (and should fail on checkpoint 14.1).
An image, even an esoteric merit badge such as those under discussion, are no less open to access and comprehension than a technical term of the type that might benefit from a site glossary.
If you genuinely feel a site can be created that makes simple sense to every user (potentially including those with mental or cognitive conditions) - and has something to say worth hearing - then I would be genuinely interested to see such a site.
I imagine this tangent may be worthy of its own thread, where the minutia can be explored without dragging another thread even further off-topic.
[/ot]
Sorry. As you were.
Share:
Back the topic
as the pages are about the web, use of badges do make some sense
though if you doubt there accuracy then please do not use them
this would be the accessiblity of pages in this case
if you are certain that the pages are AA but not all of them are AAA then use the AA one, you could add a statement ie: most the pages are to AAA standard but we cannot guarantee everyone is ect
Share:
| monkeygod wrote: |
|
if you are certain that the pages are AA but not all of them are AAA then use the AA one, you could add a statement ie: most the pages are to AAA standard but we cannot guarantee everyone is ect |
This is generally how I feel, however I know my sales team would see this as marketing suicide (well that's a bit strong, but you know what I mean).
With so many design agencies claiming triple A, and failing single A do we want to appear to the layman as worse than these companies even though the quality of our work suppasses them in every respect?
See this is the problem the part of me that's technical says be 100% accurate, not 99.99%. The part of me that has to face commerical realities says that in some instances (not all by far), ivory snow is good enough.
_________________
Red Ant
Share:
I agree that badges with links to the W3C validatior results page can be confusing for a non technical visitor.
Personally, I like the idea that the Dutch are using: In the Netherlands, their equivalent of the RNIB's See It Right campaign is called "Drempels Weg".
When a site is awarded a conformance icon, the icon is a link to a page where you can provide feedback on the site's accessibility:
| Quote: |
| If you believe that the site does not comply with one or more of the tested accessibility guidelines, you can report this using the form below. Your complaint will be carefully considered. If, upon investigation, your complaint appears to be well-founded, we will contact the web master, who will ensure that the site is changed to make it comply with the guidelines. If after a set time the site still does not comply with the guidelines, its Certificate of Accessibility will be withdrawn. |
http://www.accessibility.nl/...
Share:
Hmmm... Basically (I haven't read all posts) I think the ones interested will know when your site is accessible, so they won't need a badge, and the ones not interested won't care much. Of course, marketing perspectives can shift that a bit, but I think your work should speak for itself. I just finished work on a site that required all sorts of accessibility guidelines to be met, but we decided that we're not going to make it a showcase of standards or accessibility, but just a design that works both visually and accessibly. It's best practice, though many may disagree and say that showing off is better._________________
Rob Mientjes of the Zooiblog.
"I'm Brian, and so is my wife!"
Share:
| Rob Mientjes wrote: |
| Hmmm... Basically (I haven't read all posts) I think the ones interested will know when your site is accessible, so they won't need a badge,… |
Just thinking out loud on that note…
I imagine that having a badge - or some brief statement to a similar effect - could verify to the user that they are now entering an AA or AAA site.
I imagine that this could be quite reassuring to visitors arriving via alt-browsers, in that they can be assured that they aren't going to find that, some way into their passage through a site, certain content has been delivered/presented in a way that places it beyond their reach.
If such assurances can be given by the presence of the badge (or similar…), then I would imagine that it is those users with a vested interest who probably have the most to gain by having something to signify (pref. early on) that a site is built with accessibility amongst its priorities - and that they won't find their time and effort wasted by visiting it.
In that regard, I'd say that "showing off" has its benefits.
Alternatively, it might be something more appropriately handled by the introduction of a (new?) meta tag - or possibly something akin to the website content ratings system.
Share:
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