- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:26:34 -0800
- To: "Catherine Roy" <c.roy@camo.qc.ca>
- Cc: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 03:02 PM, Catherine Roy wrote: > My my. After reading through the various posts, I have to admit to > being a > bit surprised (yeah, I'm still that naive) at the considerable number > of > intentionally silly or hostile comments. To me, this is indicative of > what > I consider the core problem : mentality. Forgive my dark outlook but > most > people just don't care and generally, unless there is some > life-changing > experience for them or someone close to them or unless they suddenly > think > they are losing zillions of dollars, they are not likely to go out of > their > way. I think it's important not to consider Slashdot responses to be representative of public opinion on accessibility. Slashdot's audience is made up of (some may say overrun with) early-career software engineers. I've known a thousand of them, and for most, production of code with minimal effort is their core value. In some of the responses, though, you may see a breakpoint where posters see standards-compliance and accessibility as signs of a good designer (these are the "arrows in the quiver" folks Joe mentions). The former group does not desire to be reached, usually because they have no skin in the game. Tell them to design something, and you will receive a minimally-conforming implementation of your design, and nothing more. They will never learn HTML 4.01, CSS or accessible page design until instructed to do so, and are perfectly happy to roll around in their rut until the Web freezes over. Now, here's the encouraging part: the latter group is growing in numbers, and people like Mark Pilgrim (of Dive Into Accessibility[1] fame), sites like A List Apart[2], and groups like the Web Standards Project[3] are pushing forward good practices to that audience. That crowd also begins to gravitate toward standards bodies such as the W3C, as well. My advice at this point is to first latch onto that second group. They are the technological drivers, they understand the savings and benefits of built-in rather than bolted-on accessibility, and they communicate it effectively with management. And, it should be noted, they become vocal defenders of Web standards and accessibility to the first group, in fora such as Slashdot. The other ones, well, the best I think we-in-accessibility can do is to minimize the damage they cause, which means pushing vendors to make browsers (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines[4]) and authoring tools (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines[5]) support accessibility comprehensively , to make languages (XML Accessibility Guidelines[6]) more accessible (or rather, harder to make inaccessible), and building accessibility in tightly with W3C and other technologies and standards -- all things WAI is working on presently. Many of these people throw cost around as an issue when it's not even something they have to deal with: "cost" is a way to say "inconvenience" to management without sounding lazy. Honestly, retrofitting sites for accessibility is a pretty boring task when it's handed down as some vague action item to someone who doesn't understand it, and I think that's the case for many of the angrier posters. The cost issue is sometimes a rationalization designed to keep any given project off the table. The way to combat this is at the management level, explaining how most of what people with disabilities need is well within the reach of nearly every Web site, and most of that is the byproduct of simple good design practices. WAI has resources such as "Business Benefits of Web Accessibility"[7] on the Resources page[8] that are meant to address management's concerns. Chin up! :) [1] http://www.diveintoaccessibility.org [2] http://www.alistapart.com [3] http://www.webstandards.org [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10 [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xag.html [7] http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html [8] http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/ - m
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 19:26:27 UTC