Yes, I think that there has been too much and, in some respects, not enough
about accessibility relating to visual impairment.
I'm not sure that there is enough guidance on how one designs a site that is
essentially all about images for people who are visually-impaired. Some
comments by someone who is visually-impaired gave me a better idea of how to
think about describing images so that they make some sense to those who
cannot see them.
I do feel, however, that the needs of this audience are somewhat
incompatible with those who have dyslexia, those who can't understand
English etc. It is also difficult to fit in all the necessary 'plain'
information, some solid facts and explanations/interpretation alongside each
image - and to keep the web pages looking uncluttered, and easy to navigate!
Dullness is a danger when sticking to WAI guidelines - but dullness can be
created by choosing a particular background colour, a certain style of
graphics, and turgid prose. Some sites that I've seen that have been
designed (apparently) by professional web designers have gone so over the
top with "Isn't-this-all-incredibly-exciting-and-hip" that the functionality
of the site gets lost.
If I had funds to develop our project further, I'd like to add translations
of the text in other languages, particularly the main languages spoken in
our region, and develop more purely visual resources. What our project aim
is, however, is creating a web-accessible digital resource. It doesn't
preclude the further development of that resource in the future, and I'm not
sure that it is desirable to attempt more complex resources at the same time
as creating the basic resource - even if the funds were available to do
everything within the scope of one project!
Janet E. Davis
Project Leader,
Tyneside Life and Times
Sense of Place North East
www.sopne.org.uk (still being worked on - so I don't claim it's anywhere
near perfect -yet!)
Nick Poole wrote:
" While I agree with the basic point that many sites in our sector fall
short of meeting Web Accessibility Initiative validation, I think it is
important that we maintain a sense of perspective on this. WAI compliance
does not mean accessibility - it means WAI compliance. As the impending
release of the new guidelines aptly demonstrates, this in itself is a
movable feast and cannot be applied unilaterally when evaluating the
accessibility of a given site...
[snip]
"At the risk of opening the debate up still further - is there anyone else
who thinks that too much of the accessibility debate thus far has centred
around visual impairment? While I recognise that a web page is primarily a
visual medium, it's main role is still to convey information. There is very
little in the currently available standards (NOF or otherwise) about making
content intellectually accessible to different audiences, about meeting the
needs of the elderly, or those with learning difficulties, or those for whom
english is not a first language. I would be interested to hear how people
have approached these issues!"
|