Forum Moderators: phranque
I am well agreed to things such as equal rights, equal opportunities, accessibilty etc etc etc, but have recently been thinking that web accessibilty has been cutting very close to the "a step to far" line.
I am aware that this thread will bring reaction, some of which will no doubt cast me as the scum of the earth for even daring to question a persons rights etc etc etc.............but hey, i think someone has to.
It seems that all the software/hardware being developed out there such as .NET technologies, is all pretty pointless, because if the AI (accessibilty issues) go any further, all we will be allowed in a few years is basically all that was possible not so long ago i.e. one dodgy looking HTML page with 1 picture and a paragraph of text with, if you are lucky, 1 horrible blue link to another dodgy looking HTML page with 1 picture and a paragraph of text.
Again, i am in agreement that everything (not just the internet) should be available to the majority, but i also have the common sense to know when enough is enough.
It does seem a little absurd. For instance, you do not walk in to the local news agents to find 4 versions of todays Sun (not that many read it anyway): 1 for the colour blind (or visualy impaired), 1 for the person who doesn't have the strength to hold the paper etc. Most places also have their magazine stands stacked so high that anyone under 5ft 5, or in a wheel chair just has to make do with the magazines nearer the bottom.
So why is it that websites must conform to every single "user friendly" opinion out there. Would it not be far easier just to put the internet in the Bin? a drastic step, but, if we web developers have to make our sites accesible to everyone because of law, why don't tabloids have to do the same each day?
I am not against accessibilty. Im just curious as to why, when we live in a country/world that is so far from being accessible to everyone, does the internet have to be available to 100% of the population?
So many buildings have no disabled access, no elavators and poor signage. Is this not a worse offence? Yet you do not see company owners getting sued because their Sign is to small.
I could go on. I am basically wanting some opions on this. I agree that accessibility is needed, but surely there has to be a line before the purpose of the medium is ignored completely.
Also, just as a point. When you use W3C's validator to check how good sites are in terms of accessibilty, a few very important/popular sites cannot even be validated because of missing lines of code. A couple of examples are: www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.labour.gov.uk (our very own goverment site).
All nice/nasty opinions/thoughts welcome. I am an open person and willing to listen/read all views on this.
Webboy
Are you sure
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
[travelvideo.tv...]
The fact is though that bad accesibility standards are rife throughout the UK. We only hear of a few, because a lot of people won't stand up and be counted.
My main argument was between the Internet and Printed media, which are effectively the same information.......it is just easier to find on the web. If a website has to allow access to everyone, then why don't tabloids.
Websites have to conform to guidline after guideline. Yet most of todays tabloids and magazines have text so small that even people with good eyesight have to squint to read it.
Anyway, my argument is probably one of many. All i am looking for is a little perspective on the issue. If i am missing it, i am happy to be guided towards it.
I just don't want a "bandwagon" starting with the internet where people start going to far and the internet becomes a thing of the past.
I think you've got some misconceptions about web accessibility.
all we will be allowed in a few years is ... one dodgy looking HTML page with 1 picture and a paragraph of text
does the internet have to be available to 100% of the population?
W3C's validator .. www.google.com, www.yahoo.com ...
Something I wrote a while back that might make you think a little that is it not that bad, and why is better to consider accessibility from a business perspective and not one of legislation.
Accessibility, usability and SEO: A three way split!
Creating a website that can be found in high ranking positions on search engines is no longer enough to ensure its success. Accessibility and usability should be given equal priority to its search engine visibility.
Consider the possibility that a website currently holds the number 1 position on Google for a popular phrase but when the visitors arrive they are confronted with a website that is not intuitive to use. For example if certain tasks such as the payment process or simply navigating around the website are difficult for the visitor, they are likely to leave, resulting in a lost lead or sale.
The same level of consideration should be given to how accessible a site is to a user who has a disability. For example, it is estimated that around 28 million people are colour blind and if a website ignores their needs then it is likely to alienate that potential customer. That same accidental alienation can occur for a whole array of disabilities from blindness to carpel tunnel syndrome.
Further weight to the accessibly and usability argument is the progression of the wireless environment. As more people surf the internet using devices such as PDA's and mobile phones, the effort to produce an accessible website will enable the user to view the site on a variety of browsers and devices.
Fortunately and in most cases if ethical SEO work has been implemented on a website a number of objectives for usability and accessibility have already been tackled. For example, one of the first tasks in SEO is to create clear and intuitive navigational structure, which will allow a search engines to find and index all of the different pages within a website. That same clear navigation will assist the visitor in moving around the website.
By addressing the usability, accessibility and search engine visibility requirements of your website as a whole, you are maximising its reach and conversion potential and are thereby increasing its ROI, which is the bottom line!
They do a special edition for the clinically stupid though. It's called The Sun.
