Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 9th January 2008 03:15

Richard Fletcher wrote:
>
>

> How do I prove accessibility anyway? The WCAG v1 is out of date and
> nonsensical in some places now, WCAGv2 is heavily flawed for other
> reasons, I'd be surprised if anyone correctly claimed ATAG (v1 or 2)
> compliance. Despite this, even If you do follow WCAG are you guaranteed
> an accessible site? Not at all, there are a number of mental
> disabilities that imply all our images should have a clear purpose
> rather than just "look nice" but you wont find that in the WCAG.
>

As with most law in practice - as opposed to law in "theory"

The best practice is to do the research, and then do your best.

in terms of accessibilty;
CSS, and go gentle on the AJAX /javascript.
I usually settle for AA rating I fix all I can- eg video transcripts
are not always possible for a volunteer site. I read the warning/errors,
and asses whether or not they affect access to services. Often
reasonable is defined by budget/volunteer availability.
I always try to make sure that a site is clean for a screen reader.
I want to be able to say to my clients that they can claim to have made
reasonable efforts to make their site accessible, it is a feature.

Most voluntary sector sites demand it. AND I want to offer it to people
I think that it is important, I have visually impaired friends, and I
helped to set up a support site for people who suffer from visual
impairment as a side effect of a form of MS, it is nasty to loose your
sight at any age, and to me quite inconceivable to have never been able
to see, I think that it is important not to exclude anyone when they
could be included by adherence to a few rules.

however this mammoth thread rather reflects the sheer mutton headedness,
of people who insist that the law must be read in its most abstract
form and that their opinion should sway the world - and any "competent"
judge.
None of this barrack room lawyer stuff ever gets to court, unless
someone makes it their mission for some reason - ie disabled access to
nightclubs in Brighton. (they won hooray!)
In most cases they have a serious point, but not one that will get
argued until several thousands of pounds into a court case.

What actually happens in the real world about these basically civil
matters is that no -one is ever really going to shell out cash in
defending an inaccessible website, when it would be cheaper to change
it, so quick apology (pre -court case), re-write, everyone happy. A
prompt apology and promise to re-write would almost certainly be
acceptable to a judge, case dropped, and the accused company can
probably make a virtue of it - bunch of flowers - get "victim" to open
new site.......


There has just been a HUGE argument on a forum (not a techie one)about
the Data Protection Act - its a long story and I don't want to go into
it very far, it is about must/should have a written contract for data
disclosure to a data processor.
but basically it boils down to the difference between the word should
and the word must.

As far as I am concerned should = best practice,
must = mandatory,

- I have always read it as should, as the written contract can be
difficult in terms of voluntary groups, - we know who we are and we know
what we want to achieve, we are only disclosing (to each other) our own
email and mailing list for (insert deity here)'s sake. A no we don't
need to register.

However, as usual this argument has had all sorts of people on their
relative high horses going on about criminal actions under the Data
Protection act etc etc, which is absolute bollocks.

The Data Protection Act is there to stop peoples data being improperly
processed, unless this has actually happened, no harm could have come of
it and therefore no harm has been done, "in theory" breeches would never
get to court.

but do they listen?
endless hot air and angst.

So please,

as my sister in law the barrister would say

quo bono?

Cheers

Carrie









who benefits?
ans - real people benefit via accessible websites - you knew that -silly.

every one else just gets a pain in their "delete" finger.