Re: Accessibility tests of Australian University homepages

Thanks Chris,

The top logo is a gif animation called from the stylesheet, there are 
seven different logo called from the different stylesheets. What I 
really wanted to do was have one stylesheet as an aural style, but 
there is not much support for CSS sound styles, I also wanted one 
stylesheet to load an audio introduction.

I will consider options, but for the moment I am staying with the 
header logo as I get lots of hits for animations, it contains no real 
page content. If CSS allowed you to I could put an alt tag in. 
Background CSS images do not allow an alt tag.

Tim

On 09/05/2007, at 7:59 PM, Chris Harpin wrote:

> Can we please try and keep this constructive if we are going to focus 
> on one
> particular site.
>
> Whilst the colour schemes used may not be to the personal taste of some
> people, I have just tested the site with three people who are all 
> diagnosed
> as suffering from colour blindness and non found the content to be
> inaccessible. One did comment on a lack of appreciation of the colours 
> used
> but no website will ever 'wow' 100% of the visitors it attracts.
>
> The only general consensus across the three was that the logo is 
> difficult
> to understand without reading the explanation. This may be something 
> worth
> looking into and possibly loosing the scrolling effect.
>
> Rgds
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Tim
> Sent: 09 May 2007 10:53
> To: WAI Interest Group list
> Cc: Andy Laws
> Subject: Re: Accessibility tests of Australian University homepages
>
>
> Select one of seven stylesheets
> http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/WriteWWW.html#SelectCSS
>
> 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?
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email dogstar27@optushome.com

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 10:11:07 UTC