Will PAS 78 make an impact on UK Website Development?
Will PAS 78 make an impact on UK Website Development?
Yes
65%
[ 19 ]
No
34%
[ 10 ]
Total Votes : 29
| Isofarro wrote: |
| ........I find it in poor taste to begrudge a standards organisation £30 for a standards document they worked 11 months to produce. ..... |
I think it disgraceful that they took 11 months. Looks like a gravy train for those who like working on committees, to me.
Section 508 is well known. The good work has already been done. Who on earth needs guidelines which take 11 months to produce to say go and follow Section 508 rules? And why should I, or others in business, be advocating companies to buy PAS?
Share: 
| kiwibrit wrote: | ||
I think it disgraceful that they took 11 months. Looks like a gravy train for those who like working on committees, to me. Section 508 is well known. The good work has already been done. Who on earth needs guidelines which take 11 months to produce to say go and follow Section 508 rules? And why should I, or others in business, be advocating companies to buy PAS? |
as you're so enamoured of section 508 (although sect 508 and the PAS are quite different in purpose and content), why not just stick with it then? you seem to be criticising something which you haven't even seen (or even read the abstracts)
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:
redux, I am quite happy to continue with Section 508 - and I don't see that what I have read of PAS would change that, even if I agreed with the effort that's gone into it. I am simply bemused that a set of guidelines on how to commission an accessible web site should have taken 11 months to produce, and cost £30 to buy. It does seem to have wasted time and money in its gestation, with the promise of more waste to come. OTOH, I accept that I have trod the soapbox long enough - I'll give it a rest.
Share:
I wish it were freely available. In my freelance days I was often asked to supply quotes for sites for small businesses. The business commissioning the site would usually ask 3 or 4 companies to tender for the work, and then pick the cheapest or the one with the shiniest site, most didn't care about accessibility (and many probably still don't).
A freely available PAS 78 would allow web development companies to say in their pitch, "We commit to the standards contained in PAS 78...", provide a summary of accessibility issues and directions to the specification itself. That's unlikely to happen if the commissioner is then expected to shell out 30 quid. In fact when I think back to some of the tightwads I did work for they would have been apoplectic at the suggestion, and there is no way the work would have come my way.
It's these tens of thousands of SME sites built by small development companies where PAS 78 isn't going to have the impact it could have had IMHO. Forget big business and government, it's no barrier to them, and I agree with Julie that a paid for standard is likely to be taken more seriously by them.
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share:
I've just finished reading Bruce Lawson's article and the threads on this forum and I'm still a little confused by this document. It's purpose is to businesses commission accessible websites but nowhere have I read about how PAS actually does this.
Does the document give examples of writing requirements documents for tenders? Does it mention any yardsticks for measuring accessibility so they know their contractor has done what's been asked? And lastly, why does the document go into techy speak, that is talking about css and html when it's aimed at non-techies? Surely if it all tells contractors is to use the WCAG 1.0 then why bother with any technical details?
Last edited by Daz on 14 Mar 2006 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Share:
I guess, Daz, html, css etc are defined because it needs to give some core vocabulary so that commissioners and techies can at least brief each other and discuss requirements.
Sample documents/ contracts are not provided, but checklists of questions to ask are provided.
(Mods: is it possible to merge the two PAS threads so all the info is in one place?)
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
Share:
I guess I need to get my hands on a copy of this document to see what exactly is in it. Is there any endorsement from the Cabinet Office or any indication that they will make following the procurement procedures in the document part of UK Government standards?
The Out-Law article says:
| Quote: |
| Questions for suppliers are suggested, e.g. Describe how your solution will meet the accessibility targets as outlined within our accessibility policy; describe how your design process follows ISO 13407 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems; describe how you will validate early designs with users, including disabled users. |
Does the document point the reader as to where they can find more information this criteria, ISO 13407 for example?
Share:
| danchamp wrote: |
|
A freely available PAS 78 would allow web development companies to say in their pitch, "We commit to the standards contained in PAS 78...", provide a summary of accessibility issues and directions to the specification itself. |
to reiterate: PAS 78 is not a standard, and it does not contain any sets of new accessibility guidelines. it clarifies that developers need to follow WCAG.
for the businesses/organisations commissioning sites, however, it sets out lots of good information on how they should write their own accessibility policy, what questions they should ask any web developer to ensure they're not snake oil salesmen, etc.
you as a web developer can't really say "we're abiding by the PAS"...it would make little sense, IMHO. it's the clients that can say "we're following the PAS' best practice recommendations for commissioning you to build our 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:
| Daz wrote: |
| Does the document point the reader as to where they can find more information this criteria, ISO 13407 for example? |
speaking of ISO...their documents aren't free either *ducks*
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:
| brucelawson wrote: |
| (Mods: is it possible to merge the two PAS threads so all the info is in one place?) |
phpbb only allows thread splitting, not merging
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:
| redux wrote: | ||
speaking of ISO...their documents aren't free either *ducks* |
This one really threw me! I can't see anyone putting a question like that into their spec unless they're going to spend the time finding out what is "ISO 13407 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems" and how they can measure it. I can't help worryin either that some of the questions over-complicate the process. Remember people commissioning sites by and large aren't technical, in my experience customers want the advice they receive to be plain and simple.
Share:
I agree it would be helpful if the 2 threads were merged. [edit: wrote that before I saw it can't be done]
Looking back, I think I have been intemperate in my use of language, and I apologize for that. I have been frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the DDA in improving the life of my wife (a wheelchair user) and I also believe there is colossal waste of public money - yet ineffective supply of services to those in need.
I really am very busy today - but having stirred things up, I better try to create a better perspective from my view.
Firstly, to Bruce Lawson: I am aware that PAS 78 is designed for businesses. My primary web activity is the company site. I have just been modifying the home page and this one, prior to writing a brand new page which will be linked to both - hope you like them
I also realise that reference books cost money - my latest Eric Myer book was £34.99, I see. However, I cannot see that my firm would benefit in me having PAS 79, hence I cannot justify the download. More than that, someone suggested we put notes/links on our site referring PAS 78. But I think that would be pointless, since IMHO no one who has come across this link casually is going to dig out a credit card to download a document which may, or may not prove interesting.
To Julie Howell, I respect the RNIB, and am worried that my earlier remarks may have been seen as abusive to you and other RNIB staff, if so, I am sincerely sorry. However, I am not going to commence a solo campaign to the DRC - it is not what I want to do in what spare time I have. You asked about the practical help Section 508 gives. Briefly, it gives fairly clear standards that have to be met by its prime audience, and has good automatic test tools developed for it. I appreciate that automation on its own is not a total solution, but it helps. Moreover, because it is a requirement of the US, still the major web-user country in the world, there is considerable help readily available in interpretation and implementation.
Share:
Well we've received our first website tender today to make specific reference to PAS78 - so I guess it's already helping.
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| Looking back, I think I have been intemperate in my use of language, and I apologize for that. I have been frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the DDA in improving the life of my wife (a wheelchair user) and I also believe there is colossal waste of public money - yet ineffective supply of services to those in need....
To Julie Howell, I respect the RNIB, and am worried that my earlier remarks may have been seen as abusive to you and other RNIB staff, if so, I am sincerely sorry. However, I am not going to commence a solo campaign to the DRC - it is not what I want to do in what spare time I have... You asked about the practical help Section 508 gives. Briefly, it gives fairly clear standards that have to be met by its prime audience, and has good automatic test tools developed for it. I appreciate that automation on its own is not a total solution, but it helps. Moreover, because it is a requirement of the US, still the major web-user country in the world, there is considerable help readily available in interpretation and implementation. |
First thing first: no offence has been caused, to myself nor to RNIB. I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to debate these issues in public (this forum has a very large and broad readership - including the press - and those who contribute represent the very tip of an enormous iceberg). I have huge respect for those who put their head 'above the parpapet'. And anyway, I don't really get on with people until we've had a big row (ask around). So it's all good.
Please don't stop being passionate about accessibility. The cause desparately requires this level of energy.
I suspect this doesn't need saying given present company, but anyway: I can assure you that the team at RNIB are committed 100% to the cause of making the web more accessible. I can honestly say this isn't 'just a job' for any of us. Every member of the Web Accessibility Team and the Digital Policy Development Team (that I manage) is directly affected by disabilty. Either through having an impairment or chronic condition (I've had multiple sclerosis since aged 19) or through close links with someone that does.
I am sure that anyone who knows us personally as individuals knows the strength of our commitment to these issues.
I would also like to say that I am hugely indebted to the people who run and post on Accessify, to the people who call and email me at RNIB and privately, who write to the press, who post on blogs, who talk to anyone who'll listen (and to those who won't listen). This truly is a movement and one that will succeed, I have complete faith.
I wasn't intending to suggest that you be a one-man lobbying force. Rather that everyone who has strong feelings about the availability of the PAS makes those feelings known to DRC. The points you are making are entirely reasonable and should be heard. You know that I believe that businesses should pay for PAS 78. You also know that I respect BSI's business model. However, I do sympathise with the issue you have raised about access to the content of PAS 78 for advocates such as yourself.
I was discussing this point with a colleague earlier and we both noted that the reponses to this board from people who've actually read the PAS contrast with those who have not. This division within our own movement concerns me and I have put these concerns to BSI and DRC today. I will keep you posted.
Remember that when the PAS was launched it was not available for download via the BSI website. That point was made by people here. I picked it up with BSI. Within hours, and thanks to the tenacity of BSI the problem was fixed (keep in mind that web accessibility is a new issue to them, just like any business). I can't promise the outcome some people are hoping for regarding the availability of PAS 78 to people who genuinely are less able to afford the £30, but I do promise you that important points well made on this forum are being brought to the attention of BSI and DRC. You can help by contacting DRC directly, but know that your individual act is as part of a movement. You are not alone.
As you may have gathered, I'm closely involved in an online community of other people with MS and hear horrific stories about the mismanagement of care. I was also heavily involved in the battle with the government for access to disease modifying drugs (DMD) for MS. The government said the drugs were too expensive and would not be available on the NHS. We won that fight through tenacious use of resources, the support of the media and sheer weight of public opinion. And the web more that played its part.
This is a slight diversion... but during that campaign I was invited to the BBC studio as a guest on the Nicky Campbell show on Radio 5. Obviously, I alerted everyone who supported our movement to the fact that there would be a phone-in. When the time came, and to my amazement, caller after caller from our community came through live on air. I was alone in the studio but supported by hundreds of people with MS who were calling in. That experience reminds me of the huge power of the internet to create a 'movement'.
There is no doubt that public money sometimes gets wasted.
BUT I don't believe this is the case with PAS 78.
To end on a more controversial note. Section 508 should have ensured that companies such as Adobe made their tools and the output of those tools accessible. Adode did respond to the requirements set out in Section 508.
As many here know, we're working with Adobe at present but have found that true accessibility of their tools and outputs is still some way off. With the support of Adobe we succeeded in making PAS 78 accessible as a PDF (I very deliberately wanted to make that point - the medium is the message). But you will also have read in the press that we've tried to make more complex documents accessible as PDFs and it has been very difficult.
I conclude that Section 508 has been valuable in raising awareness, but I'm not certain it has 'finished the job'. If I'm wrong, please tell me.
Julie, RNIB
Share:
| redux wrote: |
| to reiterate: PAS 78 is not a standard, and it does not contain any sets of new accessibility guidelines. it clarifies that developers need to follow WCAG. |
I know it's not a standard in itself, but presumably (and I speak from a position of ignorance here, not having a copy) it does reference standards from elsewhere?
| redux wrote: |
| for the businesses/organisations commissioning sites, however, it sets out lots of good information on how they should write their own accessibility policy, what questions they should ask any web developer to ensure they're not snake oil salesmen, etc. |
Which is why I as a developer would want to draw my potential clients' attention to it, because I'm not a snake oil salesman and want to distunguish myself from those who are. The point I'm making is that having a cost attached to PAS 78 makes that trickier to do.
| redux wrote: |
| you as a web developer can't really say "we're abiding by the PAS"...it would make little sense, IMHO. |
Indeed, which is why I didn't use those words at all, but talked about "committing to standards in the PAS".
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share: