Comments on: Multiple web accessibility assessments

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:19:42 +0000

Content and Code has launched two W1 accessible websites, http://www.fifteen.net and http://www.wise-woman.net/Pages/default.aspx. These two websites show that you can create an attractive and accessible website using SharePoint 2007 whilst not loosing any functionality.

By: Gary Hides

Gary Hides — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:48:26 +0000

I’d be interesting in knowing if the the work on accessibility that has been carried out over the last few years has made a difference to the real people who use the web sites. Maybe through an opinion poll of people who may have to use a range of assistive technologies or find it difficult to assimilate information on screen - possibly a poll of people who use the services of the Shaw Trust.

What do you think?

By: JackP

JackP — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:20:40 +0000

Donna,
I don’t mean to criticise the methodology*: you have to try and come up with something practical. The problem is that as you well know a single failure to include an appropriate alt attribute for an image does not necessarily in itself render a site inaccessible (although it may do) It does, however ensure that the site cannot pass checkpoint 1.1 and therefore is not single-A compliant.

I’m not criticising the way you’re measuring the accessibility of the sites - there’s too many to simply do them all by hand - but I do think it is potentially misleading to translate the quite reasonable assements you are making - with your “marginal allowances” into a WCAG conformance level.

Under WCAG, if you fail a checkpoint, you don’t achieve the relevant conformance level. Period. No margin for error - “marginal errors” most definitely not excepted. It’s why I believe it is impractical to use WCAG as a measure for accessibility.

To me, that’s what the fuss is about. I don’t think anyone is actually criticising the RNIB’s knowledge about accessibility - I’d jolly well hope not anyway - merely suggesting that accessibility and WCAG conformance are not the same thing.

What I’d like to see is the tests being based on actual user experience, not arbitrary guidelines, or at the very least describing the tests as an equivalent to your See-it-Right or similar scheme, because you aren’t accurately measuring WCAG conformance.

*with maybe this exception: you say you ask “Are the images which lack an ALT attribute all decorative or spacer images?”. I’d include “or the information is present elsewhere in the content” into that….

By: Ian Dunmore

Ian Dunmore — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:19:47 +0000

Donna, that’s all very well and good but there are still major flaws with the thinking. These are outlined in an open letter from PSF to Socitm Insight published yesterday. Rather than replicate it in full here, I’ll link to it instead:
http://www.publicsectorforums.co.uk/page.cfm?pageID=3441

By: Mike Abbott

Mike Abbott — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:39 +0000

Thanks for that Donna