- From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:47:45 +1000
- To: WAI Interest Group list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Laws <adlaws@gmail.com>
Did you pick a colour blindnes stylesheet or check the accessibility statement? Where is your site, what standards are you using for colour blindness stylesheets? "The most inaccessible site you have ever come across".WOW Thanks for the abuse, See my accessibility statement about color schemes. http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Access/index.html#skipnav This is the research I was referring to evaluate the research and by what standards are you saying I cannot advise anyone? http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html#skipnav I expect such abuse on other groups, but I think I am out of here, if this opinion has any sway. Anyone else want to say my site is the most inaccessible site they have come across. Thanks Chris. Tim On 09/05/2007, at 7:34 PM, Andy Laws wrote: > > 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 >> > > > > -- The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email dogstar27@optushome.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 09:48:00 UTC