Forum Moderators: phranque
When producing sites like this, am I just making more work for myself. I mean, I know it is good practice to supply these options but would it not be better just make sure the page validates and leave the rest to browsers settings/accessiblilty software.
I am not even considering WAP/PDA access yet - but am I being blinkered?
Ta
Limbo
A large corporation can afford to install ramps at every entrance door, easy access elevators, toilets for the disabled, etc., but no one would expect these facilities at a corner shop. Nor are daily newspapers expected to be readable in braille or to have an audio interface. IMHO the same applies to websites.
For instance there would be little point in spending much time making a site dedicated to photographic art accessible to the visually impaired who are unlikely to be interested anyway. However it would make sense if the site were say a poetry site.
There are certain legal requirements in certain countries that apply to Government and other "official" bodies, but as far as I am aware they do not apply generally except as recommendations.
I see from your profile that you are in the UK. In a nice part!
The Disability Discrimination Act is an act that is being phased in. A corner shop must have access for the disabled and can be taken to court if they do not. Many do not and are open to legal action against them. The fact that they cannot afford it is irrelevant. There are grants available specifically for these purposes. I know of one organisation that got two ramps and a disabled toilet for just under £100 by the time you took account of the grant they received.
Grants are available for websites, believe it or not and now that a phase of the DDA law that came into place in the last few months which covers websites...all UK businesses must be compliant. A personal site would probably be exempt, but what we class as personal and what the law classes as personal can be different.
And then there is the Sydney Olympics website which was sued. I'm not sure who was sued, maybe that was the government?
For instance there would be little point in spending much time making a site dedicated to photographic art accessible to the visually impaired who are unlikely to be interested anyway.
Exactly what I thought. Until a blind person bought one of my products. Just one that I know of. And then there is the argument that they may be buying a present for someone else. It would not be too unrealistic for a deaf person to buy a friend a CD of a band that they like. So why not a blind person buying a painting?
Actually I get tipped off to a lot of good music by a deaf friend of mine. He's got great taste in dance music. Whilst he can't hear a country balled, he can feel the rhythm and bass of a good dance track.
Accessibility isn't an add on. If it seems to be that implies to me there are improvements to be made in the designer or developer's process. It's all part of the same stage at which one starts looking at how SEs will interpret the page, so it shouldn't be much extra work if any.
Yes, nice part of the world, but I'm afraid not really in tune with the DDA. It would cost millions to convert all the Nineteenth Century shops in my local highstreet to the proposed standard. This is hill country with steps everywhere, even inside the shops. People here just about eek out a living, with shops regularly going bust. Grants are also out of the question unless they come from central government because the local economy could not afford the increase in rates.
That's why I said it was a matter of common sense. Utopias never have worked.
Incidentally I assume you are waiting for a grant before making your own site compliant. Such small print and not resizable. Tsk! Tsk! :)
Harry
some very good points made.
if your site is accessible to people using screen readers (and other assistive technologies), it must look quite tasty to SE spiders...
Blobfisk - that is something I hadn't really considered - the 'low graphics' version are so simply rendered that spiders would lap it up. It's a case of; here's your anchors, that's H1, that's H2 and that's my paragraph text - now go to lunch ;)
From a legal stand point - I can't see my site being judged as non accessible - it's just adding these will make it much more accessible. I guess it also means I can charge more, but then I have to convince my clients why.
Also I am under the impression that accessibility is NOT just a disability issue, but also relates to OS, Browser, hardware etc. e.g. can someone with a WAP phone PDA or ancient PC get all the info as quick as they need it. But with low hit rate for my subject matter I am having conflicting thoughts on how far to take it.
"so it shouldn't be much extra work if any"
Eric - I have found that accessible support does take time and effort to get right though. Access keys, good alt descriptions, long descriptions, low graphics, skip navigation, title attributes, no javascript, WAP version, text alternatives to multimedia. It all adds up.
I think it's something I will continue to do for now. But to what level is my next question. What do I/You include when interpreting guidance for accessible sites? All of the above? more? less?
Ta
Limbo
I have never seen screen readers in action - at 34mb I might look for another alternative (56k) but it would interest me to see the results/differences for sites I have designed with accessibility in mind. The ideal would be to watch users 'viewing' my site with accessibility solutions/software.
Ta
Limbo
... at 34mb I might look for another alternative (56k) ...
I share your predicament, will try to get a friend who has a T1 line to burn me a CD. It should be interesting to see how my site, which works fine with lynx, actually performs in that environment.
