W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: Letter in '.net' magazine

From: Jukka Korpela <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:45:35 +0300
Message-ID: <621574AE86FAD3118D1D0000E22138A95BDECD@TIEKE1>
To: "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

SHARPE, Ian wrote:

> Amongst other things it calls 
> the WAI (and the RNIB) a bunch of hypocrits for promoting web

Well, that's a rather aggressive formulation, but the credibility problem is
very real; what I mean is that _generally_ sites promoting accessibility
have themselves quite some accessibility problems, though some sites might
be exceptions to the rule. The issues raised in the letter are real too.
Some of them reflect people's confusion around accessibility, but that's a
reality too. I think the letter would deserve clarifying comments, which
partly admit the problems pointed out, rather than refutation.

> - RNIB and WAI's web sites are accessible and do pass the Bobby test.

Actually, no:
They both have features that Bobby flags as violations of AAA conformance.

There are often good explanations to accessibility problems on pages that
themselves promote accessibility. For example:
"Note, however, that currently this page is not compliant -- like many pages
on EUROPA, its navigation system features a number of accessibility
problems. EUROPA is a massive site, featuring well over a million pages, so
the adoption of the guidelines marks the beginning of a long compliance
process, not the end."

So I think we should have some understanding of how commercial sites may
suffer from similar problems - and they haven't even got any special funding
for restructuring their site for accessibility reasons.

Jukka Korpela, senior adviser 
TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre
Diffuse Business Guide to Web Accessibility and Design for All:
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 07:46:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:20 UTC