1 Best practices?

I agree, but surely (and like the British Standards Institute in the UK) the W3C are at least making vested efforts to bring about standards.

The interpretation of ‘standards’ is an issue which can’t be resolved unless specific lines of code are defined (which is basically impossible!).

So hats off to W3C, and lets see if some ‘standards’ can be forged using best practices by the wider web community…

posted at 04:03 am on November 14, 2003 by Rob Sayles

2 G is for guidelines

Joe’s arguments make a lot of sense; it certainly would seem that the WAI is making similar mistakes with WCAG 2 as those made when drawing up WCAG 1.

I provide training on Web accessibility and focus on practical subjects like navigation, images, forms and tables, rather than attempting to follow the 65 (!) WCAG 1 checkpoints. WCAG 2 unfortunately fails to simplify the requirements by reducing the numbers of checkpoints and compliance levels but increasing their scope and, perhaps, their ambiguity.

Perhaps part of the problem is that public authorities and organisations are adopting WCAG 1 (and soon, presumably, WCAG 2) as ‘standards’, forgetting that they are guidelines. A site may not reach Level AA (to be replaced with Core+) compliance, but its designer might be well-versed enough in Web accessibility techniques that the site is more accessible than another that purports to achieve Level AAA.

Yes, more examples drawn from the day-to-day practicalities of designing and using Web sites are needed to illustrate the principles of Web accessibility — but also to inform the WAI about what users with disabilities are using the Web for and how they do it, so that we can make Web sites that they can and like to use.

posted at 04:46 am on November 14, 2003 by LintHuman

3 Important Article!

This is the most important article ALA has run in a long time and I hope it will get the desired response. You’ve done an ace job of breaking down a long, incomprehensible document into red flags and action items. There’s a huge disconnect between the scientists at the W3C and those of us who create Web sites. Many of us get our standards and accessibility information not from the W3C but from its interpreters who speak English and common sense (you, Eric Meyer, Zeldman, WSP, Pilgrim, Scott Andrew, etc.).

There’s another disconnect between the Usual Suspects who incorporate standards and accessibility into design (Bowman, Shea, Hicks, Pick, Cederholm, Zeldman, etc.) and other strong designers who focus on pushing the envelope. I’d love to see the W3C sit down with Matt Owens, Trevor Van Meter, Cuban Council, etc., look at some of the award winning work being done, and figure out how leading edge graphic design and accessibility can merge. Maybe a summit meeting?

Anyway, the longest journey begins with the smallest step, and this article is a big step in the right direction. Thanks.

posted at 06:58 am on November 14, 2003 by jdaniels

4 Wrong approach

<<<<If you choose to make standards-compliant websites, inevitably you will have to follow the guidelines. It’s foreseeable that you could be legally required to follow WCAG 2.0. You could opt into following the guidelines or they could be foisted upon you.>>>

1. I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

2. No need to scare developers with some vague “in-the-future” threat.

This reminds me of the situation a couple of years ago when all the pressure was on designers to completely abandon tables for layout (the proponents have since “recanted”). Accessibility is all fine and dandy, but people should make their own decision as to what is best for the sites they are creating.

The dream of a site accessible TO ALL is just that: a dream.

posted at 07:01 am on November 14, 2003 by irvin

5 re: Wrong approach

>>>I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

Already many sites are legally mandated to observe WAI-derived guidelines such as Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act in the U.S.

When the next generation of guidelines is written, it’s not improbable that laws governing the accessibility of Web sites will be updated accordingly.

On that level alone it is in the interest of people who create sites to help ensure that the guidelines actually make sense and are achievable.

That said, even if all accessibility-related laws stayed as they are (or even if they went away, which won’t happen) it would still make sense for designers to involve themselves in the process of creating clear, usable, achievable accessibility guidelines.

Why? Because many of us want to make more accessible sites, and good, usable guidelines can help us do that. Unclear, confusing, or unrealistic guidelines will not help.

You may not ever be legally mandated to make your site(s) accessible. You may never have clients who care about it. You may never, not even in the next 20 years, personally have an interest in it or a change of feeling about it. But you might!

posted at 07:15 am on November 14, 2003 by sanchez

6 Excellent article

Great article. I intend to re-read it and then head over to see what I can contribute. Accessibility is becoming a requirement with more and more clients, and I would like to be involved with this process.

posted at 08:19 am on November 14, 2003 by Ben Langhinrichs

7 Translation

Joe Clark is a seriously intelligent and well-informed commentator. From what I can see, this is better and wider-ranging than his FIR article. Like Ben, I’d have to read it more than once.

I’m not sure about the re-wording task. It’s a nice parlour game, and I’d like to try it. But my understanding of translation is that this approach is less than ideal. They tried this with the New English Bible and the end result does not rival Tyndale.

Tyndale translated well because he was properly at home in both languages. What is needed is someone who understands the Web languages involved – and all the issues around their use – and who can write simple clear direct, properly colloquial, English.

But, as Joe says, contributing to the discussions would be good.

posted at 09:59 am on November 14, 2003 by Michael

8 It's the Browser's Problem

If Browser vendors were required to release a ‘accessibility view’ function with all of their browsers you could switch easily to a text only, properly alligned, etc, interface. This would cause developers and designers the world over to take notice.

I propose that browsers be made to integrate a standard ‘accessibility view’, perhaps even designed as an open module of code by the W3C, the WAI or the development community at large.

This would create a snowball effect of develpers and designers knowing that their sites were, exactly, designed to be accessible. Without browser support, we will have no common design. And without a common accessibility design goal, we can have no common accessibility.

posted at 04:45 am on November 15, 2003 by CD Evans

9 technology versus morality

Interesting article :-)

The WAI has stepped away from a rigid definition of what web content might be and has instead started trying to describe ‘all’ content in the broadest and most abstract terms. My feeling is they are now lost in the territory of linguists and utterance interpretation, the murky academic provinces where sense is sought of the “how” and the “why” of what we say, mean or do — seriously confusing stuff (one of these maniacs should be able to help though: http://linguablogs.fieldmethods.net/)

Perhaps an interim solution would be to narrow the scope of what content bits need to be made accessible?

If we assume the key issue is equal access to information — or at least lack of overly privileged access to information the by non-disabled — then the question becomes

“Does the non-disabled person have privileged access to this information beyond that inherent to his lack of disability?”

The graphic “/cognima_diag.gif” on page http://www.cognima.com/products/ conveys information about what a piece of software does.

The alt tag says “diagram: The Cognima Server at the network operator mediates between content on the one hand and subscribers on the other”

The sighted user gets the info about how the product is used, but the graphic also conveys unspoken branding messages about the company “This company wants to make complex things clear and simple to understand” “This company’s products are simple to use, fresh, cool, upbeat” and so on.

My point is that the WAI should not ask us to convey these ‘indirect’ messages in writing — that’s just silly. Instead, by keeping the alt tag to the factual information the site’s designer does not disadvantage the disabled user but also, does not restrict the sighted user’s experience.

Similar common sense stuff could be used for structure.

Test your site in Lynx. Can you use it? Does it make sense, provide all the functionality and information it does in Internet Explorer?

If not, then the same question applies:

“Does the non-disabled person have privileged access to this information beyond that inherent to his lack of disability?”

If your site is a game, then of course not — a sighted person is always going to be better at aiming a gun.

If your site is an online bank, then you are giving the non-disabled an unfair leg up.

In a nutshell, it comes down to effort and discipline. It can be a pain getting sites to work properly without hacks but if you don’t, you’re being lazy :-)

posted at 06:02 am on November 15, 2003 by Dug Falby

10 topic thoughts

I personally have never liked W3C’s explanations of anything.

Back in the day when I started learning HTML I took a copy of the zombieweb.com homepage (when it was still active) which was a BIG three column page and essentially table hell, but I learned more about the code there then anywhere on W3C. They haven’t improved much since then which was 1998. Their specs are difficult to understand. Their site has nearly no navigation besides the link to the homepage. Directory navigation sort of comprehendible but not memorable (Just like the w3c not to use plain english in there directory structure also! Ex. Using http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ when something like http://www.w3.org/WorkingGroup/WebAccessibility/ will be more memorable to visitors and make use of a directory structure that follows the page title ‘Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0’)

Semantic code, separation of content and design are both good ideas that have origins in the W3C’s Recommendations. The W3C have done a lot to improve the web’s accessibility especially with XML, its variants, and stylesheets. They just don’t teach it very well.

I do agree with this article though. A severe rewording/reworking of the Accessiblity Guidelines is a must. I have one major complaint so far about the guidelines. Why do they have to rule out images so often when making an accessible site? There are more than just blind/visually disabled people on the net. I think they might learn a thing or two from (http://www.webaim.org) WebAIM and this interesting article on (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/articles/vis_vs_cog) accessibility.

OK, now I’m done venting, thanks ALA for sparking up this conversation though.

posted at 06:55 am on November 15, 2003 by chuck

Discussion Closed

New comments are not being accepted, but you are welcome to explore what people said before we closed the door.

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Forgot your password?

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)