W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Inaccessible Compliant Sites

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:12:11 +0200
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s8pqmll6zqgw0t@0032k2d.e-fti.com>

I think that the problem is partly Murphy's law, that if something can go  
wrong, it will go wrong, and if people can do something wrong and make  
their site inaccessible, many probably will. If something has fallen by  
the wayside in the guidelines, some people will probably do it and make  
the content inaccessible. They will think up new and innovative ways of  
making content inaccessible that the guidelines WG never thought of.

I think it's also useful to think about the GLs not only as how to make  
web content accessible, so much as how to avoid making it inaccessible,  
which isn't the same thing.

-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant,
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios),
Madrid, Spain.
achuter@technosite.es

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:49:43 +0200, Helle BjarnÝ <hbj@visinfo.dk> wrote:

>
>
> I fully agree with Wayne and just want to add my two cents to the  
> discussion. I often hear the argument that a web site is not very useful  
> for users with a specific disability and therefore the site is not  
> accessible even if it complies with WCAG A or AA. In these cases I think  
> we have to tell people that WCAG is also a compromise between different  
> needs and preferences and the alternative specific guidelines according  
> to specific disabilities or other special needs would be impossible to  
> incorporate in any larger setting and totally against the idea of  
> standardization.
> As we see problems due to the users lack of knowledge to their AT  
> applications, there are also problems with users not understanding the  
> meaning of specific checkpoints and guidelines in WCAG e.g. device  
> independent input. I have several times had to explain that this is the  
> guideline about not using the mouse.
> Cheers
> Helle
>
> Sincerely
> Helle BjarnÝ
> Visual Impairment Knowledge Centre
> Rymarksvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
> Phone: +45 39 46 01 01
> fax: +45 39 61 94 14
> e-mail hbj@visinfo.dk
> Direct phone: +45 39 46 01 04
> Mobile: +45 20 43 43 47
> www.visinfo.dk
> www.euroaccessibility.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On  
> Behalf Of Wayne Dick
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:58 AM
> To: EOWG (E-mail)
> Subject: Inaccessible Comliant Sites
>
>
> Why People Think W3C Compliant Sites Can Be Inaccessible:
>
> This should start things off.
>
> 1. Websites lie or stretch the truth:  Many institutions claim
> compliance when the claim is not true.  This gives users the impression
> that a compliant website is not accessible.
>
> 2.  Priority 1 is pretty weak:  This compliance leaves some big
> usability holes.  Layout tables are permitted; device independent input
> can be skipped.  That can be enough to render a site profoundly
> difficult if not unusable.
>
> 3.  Other guidelines:  Some sites claim compliance with other guidelines
> or cite affiliation with independent accessibility projects to support
> accessibility claims.  Again the user sees the claim of accessibility
> and assumes some level of W3C compliance.
>
> 4.  Total reliance on automated tools:  A clean bill of health by an
> evaluation tool is not W3C compliance.  Many people pass tool at a
> certain level and call that their complete audit.  Periodically sites
> must be audited by people.
>
> 5.  Inexperience with assistive technology:  Many new users blame the
> page when they cannot use the assistive technology.  I see this in my
> classes when I use Home Page Reader to illustrate points.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 10:13:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:42 GMT