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

Re: Accessibility tests of Australian University homepages

From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:52:46 +1000
Message-Id: <3584fad115dff4a0373dac5e5303d6d4@optushome.com.au>
Cc: Andy Laws <adlaws@gmail.com>
To: WAI Interest Group list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Select one of seven stylesheets

You have tested it have you, I admit the hompage is ordinary, every  
other page is not.
What stylesheet did you select for what form of colour blindness?


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
Email dogstar27@optushome.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 09:53:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:30 UTC