Nick,
I think you have a point there. There really should be a raised level
of awareness in the field, and it should be more defined as a whole.
But all things said, in my naive and idealistic way I really hope that
one day we will have budgets set aside to do actual user trials. After
all if we don't test on a real audience we will never know what works
and what doesn't. All this technology can help but in the end people,
users, are the only one that can actually say if the site works or not.
I just think we should strive for best practice and think as inclusive
as possible. Some things are easy to include some others need a bit
more skill and thinking. Why not try to involve the actual people who
are disabled and ask what they think. Maybe make an
alliance/partnership with local associations and ask for their help.
It's worth the effort I think.
Also I am glad we have discussions like these. We are the ones that can
actually do something about it..at least I'd like to think so..
Have a good weekend all!
Samantha

On 21 May 2004, at 15:57, Nick Poole wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I really promised myself I would call it a day there, but I find I
> can't
> stop...
>
> Many of the web developers with whom I have spoken in the past have
> commented that we as clients often request that our websites should be
> accessible, but that the concept itself is incredibly poorly defined.
> Obviously, developers have to break these concepts down into code and
> ways of structuring it. This means making practical decisions based on
> unequivocal information.
>
> Unfortunately, this information simply does not exist, for some of the
> reasons which have been touched on this afternoon. You can point people
> to the Government guidelines for web development teams, but that stops
> short of a precise definition of accessibility. You can point people at
> the W3C, but you will find recommendations and levels rather than 'x is
> accessible and y is not'. Even the DDA reference is terribly unhelpful
> in practical terms.
>
> I went through a rash period of suggesting that people include
> validation to W3C guidelines as a deliverable for their web projects
> when using external suppliers. Perhaps this would produce a generation
> of perfectly constructed XHTML-based sites with beautifully degradable
> presentation, but I'd like to think that what we're really striving for
> with all of this work on accessibility is wider than that, and has more
> to do with fitness for purpose, being inclusive and being exciting and
> engaging.
>
> There's also a flipside to this - I have seen many developers actively
> targeting us as a market on the basis of their skills in producing
> 'accessible' websites, which later turn out to be fairly ropey even on
> a
> purely technical level.
>
> When I said that no site will ever be completely accessible, I meant
> that there can never be a precise definition of what the term means,
> because it is relative to all sorts of other factors. Insisting on it
> as
> some kind of realisable standard will therefore always leave us
> susceptible to accusations of failing in our duty to our audiences,
> which I just don't believe we do.
>
> I'm turning off Outlook now, I promise....
>
> Nick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Ratcliffe
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Gallery Launches Two New Websites
>
> ...there's no reason why a decent level of accessibility and a strong
> and
> immediate impact can't go hand in hand - indeed an accessible site will
> reach a much broader audience and will tend to be more usable (and also
> often appears higher in search engine rankings, for Google at least).
> All
> it takes is to a) think about accessibility from at the start of the
> design
> process and b) use a web designer who can actually code things properly
> as
> well as just making them look pretty on Internet Explorer...
>
> On the accessible Flash front, yes it is possible, you need to use
> Flash
> MX.
> There's a good example at http://www.yourmoneybewise.org.uk/
>
> Cheers for livening up the friday afternoon!
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Nick Poole
> Sent: 21 May 2004 14:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Gallery Launches Two New Websites
>
>
> Dear Marie et al,
>
> (standard waiver applies!)
>
> Just to respond to Samantha's message - I did not mean to imply that we
> do nothing. I mean to say that we have done, and will continue to do a
> great deal. The picture is nothing like as bleak as it is often
> painted.
>
>
> We need to recognise that there are many different interests at play
> around this issue. From those for whom strong and immediate impact is
> the primary motivation in developing their web services to those for
> whom technical accessibility and building websites is the basis of
> their
> business model. It is important that we recognise these interests and
> try to reconcile them rather than setting them up in opposition to each
> other as we so often appear to do.
>
> The issuing of fines to people who don't meet AA-standards seems
> misguided at best. It is simply no way to motivate people to be excited
> about their web services and strive for improvement.
>
> And let's be quite clear. The DDA does not apply to the web
> unilaterally. The guidance to part 3 of the DDA makes reference to a
> web-based service in quite a specific context. I seriously believe that
> this is more a matter of best practice than litigation.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Marie Fowler
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Gallery Launches Two New Websites
>
> re the 'Museum and the Web' conference at Leicester. I seem to remember
> at
> that conference that one of the speakers pointed out that you cannot
> make
> one website accessible to everyone, but obviously you can do something.
>
> (again - my opinion, not my employer's)
>
> Marie Fowler
> Documentation Officer
> Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Samantha Cichero <[log in to unmask]>@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> on 21/05/2004
> 13:51:54
>
> Please respond to Museums Computer Group <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent by: Museums Computer Group <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject: Re: National Gallery Launches Two New Websites
>
>
>>
> Again as stated by others before this is just my personal opinion NOT
> my employer's, so here's my two cents in:
> It is a bit disappointing to read that 'there has never been, nor will
> there ever be, a completely accessible website' or even worse that
> there is much worse around. So, does it mean we shouldn't even try?
> these sounds to me like like major excuses to actually do nothing. I
> would like to think that there is many out there that are trying VERY
> hard to include as many people as possible when they are designing both
> content and layout of websites. I can sympatise with Peter actually and
> I understand his frustration. Major museums should really lead the way
> in that sense. Or are we reiterating the idea that museum access is for
> a selected group of people like in the 19th century? It is 2004, it
> isn't a matter of what we SHOULD do, it is a matter of what we MUST do.
> The DDA applies to the web and, as I am sure everybody knows, starting
> late this year applying it is not an option anymore. I was just reading
> an article about how they are prepared to hand out fines to people that
> have non-accessible sub AA standards websites, and not a moment to soon
> I think. I honestly don't think it requires that much more effort to
> keep in mind who we're are writing/designing for. Especially since
> Macromedia and all major software companies have put tools out there to
> make our life a lot easier when developing websites. All it takes is a
> little effort and a little awareness. Certainly nothing will ever
> happen if we all adopt the 'why bother?' attitude. Didn't you come to
> the 'Museum and the Web' Conference this year in Leicester? It was very
> interesting indeed and a lot was discussed on this topic. It was also
> sponsored by this very group.
>
> pardon the diatribe/off the soapbox
>
> Samantha Cichero
> The Multimedia Team Ltd
> Kestrel 3D
> 9 Kittle Yards
> Causewayside
> Edinburgh
> EH9 1PJ
>
> Tel: + 44 (0) 131 466 8016
> Fax: + 44 (0) 131 466 8018
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> *
> *************************
> The information contained within this e-mail (and any attachment) sent
> by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity to
> whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
> accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately, or telephone
> +(44) 121 303 6666. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or
> copying is not permitted and may be unlawful. Any e-mail including its
> content may be monitored and used by Birmingham City Council for
> reasons
> of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office
> policy on staff use. E-mail blocking software may also be used. Any
> views or opinions presented are solely those of the originator and do
> not necessarily represent those of Birmingham City Council. We cannot
> guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not
> been intercepted and amended.
>
> ***********************************************************************
> *
> *************************
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
> --
> This email was forwarded via the University of Cambridge alumni email
> system
> Visit http://cantab.net/ to update your forwarding details
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
Samantha Cichero
The Multimedia Team Ltd
Kestrel 3D
9 Kittle Yards
Causewayside
Edinburgh
EH9 1PJ

Tel: + 44 (0) 131 466 8016
Fax: + 44 (0) 131 466 8018
http://www.kestrel3d.com/multimedia
_______________________________________________
This email and any attachment are confidential to the intended
recipient. If received in error, please forward this email to
[log in to unmask] and then delete it from your system. While
all reasonable steps have been taken to protect this email, the
sender is unable to accept any responsibility for any viruses
transmitted by it. The contents of this message are the personal
views of the sender. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of
Kestrel 3D or The Multimedia Team by means of email communications.