- From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:55:15 +0100
- To: <tina@greytower.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: <tina@greytower.net> Subject: Re: accessify.com's review of RNIB relaunch > On 25 Jun, Lauke PH wrote: > > > Many of you may already have read this (or similar) reports, > > but nevertheless... > > http://www.accessify.com/archives/2003_06_22_news-archives.asp#1056460146440 65669 > > I hadn't noticed - but I've read Accessify's comments now and find > that whilst I agree with some of them, *my* initial reaction is one of > resignation. :-( I'm a bit disappointed and deflated. It a bit awkward advocating accessibility built on webstandards when a publically visible accessibility lobby like the RNIB have a website that largely ignores webstandards. I firmly belive that web standards compliance and good HTML structure build a very good foundation for accessibility. Maybe I am being too greedy by expecting accessibility and webstandards to be part of the same "bandwagon". > Whilst the RNIB could, clearly, have gone much further in their work > to get a more accessible *for all* website, they have a fairly narrow > focus, and probably bad consultants. I'd like to hear from the RNIB themselves - particulary in their guidance on accessibility issues. Did they consider WCAG as a foundation and add their expertise on top of that? Did they think Priority A is enough for accessibility (based on the non-valid and presentational laden HTML). Is the message supposed to be: "We don't care either way how a website is designed, we prefer starting with tossed tag salad and adding some nice accessible toppings". I realise I need to keep an open mind in this particular situation (my judgement is visibly emotive rather than factual at this point - I admit), and perhaps we (the mailing group) could consider inviting a representative of the RNIB here to discuss their approach to their redesign, and the message they want to deliver to UK based organisations and companies. > Tell me again why validation is important ? Its just a fixed available target, and a better option than playing browser-catchup. I apologise if the above sounds sarcastic and borders on provocative or derogatory. So I've opted to try something a bit more constructive: http://www.isolani.co.uk/access/rnib/rnib.html -- although I haven't added in any skip links and accesskeys yet, I basically wanted to see if the RNIB design could be done using structured HTML and CSS layout, and using a content-first approach. The skip links can be added in the same way as RNIB have decided to do it (1pixel image as link text), although I'd probably prefer an unordered list of links with proper link text to do the same job. I see Simon Willison has also taken this approach: http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/06/25/RNIBinCSS Through the thread on this mailing list it looks like we've uncovered another myth - that XHTML is more accessible than HTML. I'm heartened by the excellent discussion on it, and it is clear to me it is nothing more than a myth. Probably the a more accurate reflection is "valid and well structured markup is generally more accessible by default than a collection of tags in a random order." > There is alot of people screaming bloody murder over this whilst > shuffling a variety of recently used blunt instruments under the > carpet and into the closet. True, though with a dynamic website there is a tendancy for pages not to validate because of silly things like incorrect escaping of URLs - so there is an element of risk that a page could be invalid after it was previously valid. What matters, I guess, is how we deal with it (Notably Tim Roberts has opted to fix the offending style - which is good). > To the RNIB, to Accessify, to GuyWeb, to Simon Willison: DO try to > sweep your own before going out to sweep others. As always, good sensible advice. We have to live up to our ideals if we ever expect others to do so willingly too - otherwise we a prone to end up merely chucking accusations of "its not accessible" , "neither is yours" with no hope of a positive and ultimately end-user-beneficial outcome. Mike
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 06:53:00 UTC