At 15:57 on Friday, 21 May 2004, Nick Poole wrote:
> 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'd agree with the sentiment that absolute accessibility is unattainable,
however this does not negate it as a target.
Making an "accessible" web site is an important goal for a host of
reasons. Defining your own level of accessibility at the outset of the
project and measuring the outcomes against your definition is one sure way
of deciding if you have acheived your goals.
It seems to me that there are clearly defined minimum standards for
accessible web sites and they include resizable text and alternative text
for all images (use alt="" for images without visual meaning).
Creating valid code to match the correct DOCTYPE should also be a minimum
standard for professional web designers, in the same way that ISO
standards are used to measure other suppliers.
It's too easy to excuse poor coding and inaccessible web sites on the
grounds that accessibility is hard to define. The points that Peter
raised at the start of this thread cannot be denied, namely that public
funding was used to create a product that doesn't meet the minimum
requirements for modern websites.
This document:
http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/Resources/WebHandbookIndex1Article/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4000092&chk=XHiT3L
or
http://snipurl.com/6kq0
has been around for some time, so it's disappointing to see a web site
launched so proudly that fails at so many fundamental levels.
designing with web standards from the outset makes accessibility simple to
attain.
ho hum.
Tony
--
http://www.xebit.net/
|