W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Accessibility tests of Australian University homepages

From: Andy Laws <adlaws@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:34:48 +0100
Message-ID: <6ab7f2a50705090234u13a6ef93h6bfc7208aa10b260@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christopher Hoffman" <christopher.a.hoffman@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>, "WAI Interest Group list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I am sorry but how can any one with a site such as
http://www.hereticpress.com advise any body on web accessibility, this is
the most inaccessible site I have ever come across. Yes it meets all the w3c
standards, but it accessible? No. it is estimated that in the UK that up to
10% of the adult population suffers from some form of cognitive disability
and with a population of 52milion that amounts to some 520,000 users in the
UK alone, are excluded from using your site. Due to your choice and use of
color, I have tested your site through




On 5/9/07, Christopher Hoffman <christopher.a.hoffman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 5/8/07, Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> > This is my first post, but I am a bit of an accessibility vetran, a
> > political activist even at testing government and educational websites
> > for accessibility and then displaying the results for the public to
> > see. Any critical comments on my work are most welcome.
>
> Umm.... it looks like for US$895 you will run a Web page through W3C
> and CynthiaSays.com validators
> ( http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Rates.html#accessreports
> ).
>
> > ...some universities have supported my work, others refuse to
> > acknowledge me and claim I am being aggressive in these reviews. Is
> > there a better way to go about promoting accessibility?
>
> Well, there are things like working to promote Web standards and
> accessibility through groups like the W3C and WASP, as well as giving
> site owners good reasons to spend the time and resources to make their
> sites more accessible. The arguments don't even have to be directly
> related to accessibility. For example, standards-based sites are
> generally easier and less costly to update and maintain, with better
> accessibility as a side effect.
>
> > Through this page in the last two weeks, I have managed to get
> > three Universities to improve their homepages for W3C validity, but not
> > much movement yet on accessibility.
>
> As I said above, giving me, as a site owner, good reasons to invest in
> an accessible Web site would probably go a lot further toward
> convincing me to "move on accessibility" than listing tags, attributes
> and features that my site is missing or deficient in.
>
> > 64% of Australian Universities passed Priority One WCAG 1.0
> > accessibility tests.
> > 11% of Australian Universities passed Priority Three WCAG 1.0 Checlists
>
> That's really depressing, but it's just another instance of something
> that everybody on this list already knows: that the vast majority of
> Web sites out there are severely lacking when it comes to
> accessibility. Tests and checklists are great tools for designers and
> developers, but they aren't going to persuade site owners.
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
>


--
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 09:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:26 GMT