Hi Paul,
(Sorry for late reply - been out of the office)
(Specific feedback on Headscape sent separately)
Paul Boag wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> Below is my response to Christine. I didn’t initially post it o the whole group because I didn’t want to start Spamming. However, as you have responded I thought I should explain my point of view:
>
> Hi Christina,
> To be honest all web design companies are caught between a rock and a hard place over this.
Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't feel that 'all' web design companies
give this as much thought as you do. The results of the DRC
investigation showed that "Website designers have an inadequate
understanding of the needs of disabled users and of how to create
accessible websites, and would welcome clearer guidance."
Also only 6% of website developers approached completed the survey
"suggests in itself a relatively low level of interest
in accessibility issues, even amongst website developers, who
might be thought to benefit commercially from concerning
themselves with such matters".
On one hand 3.4 makes it completely clear that in order to be priority 2
compliant you have to make your site scalable. However, many of our
clients want to have fixed width sites because of the control it gives
them over the layout of the site. It is true that fixed width does
provide many design benefits which many feel cannot be achieved on
scalable sites (control over line length for one). However, I accept the
accessibility problems this also creates. We have solved that problem on
the headscape site by using an alternative style sheet for users that
want scalability. In this way we meet other the accessibility
requirements and the constraints on design that some of our clients demand.
The DDA refers to access. There is no explicit requirement to follow any
level of WCAG guidelines (which the investigation acknowledged have
limitations), and I agree that following guidelines blindly is not the
answer.
What is clear is that compliance with the guidelines will not
necessarily make a website accessible to disabled users, and in some
cases will make it worse. (eg access keys)
The DRC report also stated that guidelines and automated testing tools
are only part of what is needed. Another recommendation being that
website developers should "involve disabled people with a range of
sensory, cognitive and mobility impairments from early in the process of
website design and development."
So it seems that irrespective of future guidelines, standards, browser
versions and plugins, the big problem is organising the testing of
websites with these groups of users.
> Of course just to confuse the matter still further there is a new technique being proposed which we might consider adopting in the future: http://www.particletree.com/features/dynamic-resolution-dependent-layouts/
Looks interesting!
>
> I am sorry to say that I think it is naive to claim that higher levels of accessibility do not impact design.
I do in fact agree that higher levels of accessibility 'can' impact
design. But I also think that many, many designs can accommodate such
changes (to be more accessible, usable, whatever) without much impact.
Another DRC investigation statement:
"the recurrent barriers to achieving accessibility
disclosed by this phase of investigation appear to be a
combination of unsupported assumptions about what it takes
to achieve an accessible website and of ignorance about how to
tackle access issues even where the will to do so is already
present."
(Cost in time and resources was also identified as a barrier to the
development of accessible websites.)
I'm not accusing you or Headscape of this but by having such a statement
on your website I feel that many people (including large numbers of
developers who are clearly visiting your website/blog) will actually
take from it that design and accessibility are incompatible goals. Maybe
it's the way that I read it, but it does read to me as a blanket
statement when in fact you have done a lot of work on making the site
accessible and having it looking good.
>Yes, Headscape are accessibility experts but we are also pragmatic about accessibility recognising that accessibility has to be balanced against numerous other factors all of which are also important: http://www.boagworld.com/archives/2005/10/the_missing_pil.html
> I am not about to alienate potential clients and their able bodied users by insisting on the highest levels of accessibility regardless of the consequences.
No indeed, and I wasn't suggesting you should.
This picks up on another recommendation from the DRC investigation:
"Website commissioners should formulate written policies for meeting the
needs of disabled people" and I think this is the crux of it. Until
clients demand accessibility (rather than developers saying "you should
really do this because...") and until there is more involvement in the
development of websites by users with disabilities (kind of dependent on
the client wanting such accessibility in the first place) I can't see
how things will actually change much. :| Maybe the changes will trickle
through (like equal pay).....
> I hope that helps clarify my position. Would you recommend I change the text on that page to more closely reflect this?
Maybe mention that the WCAG guidelines are not the de facto, and
compliance with them doesn't guarantee that it will make a site more
accessible. Proclaim how accessible your site is (after testing).
I think this has been useful for thinking where accessibility's at right
now and also hearing Paul's views as someone who works in the
'for-profit' sector and is therefore more focused on objectives, as he
says on his blog "often overlooked in the web design process".
I believe we still need standards (up to date ones, yeh) but maybe also
more of a systems/modelling approach to the whole web thing. A kind of
SSADM/UML specifically for websites (not just web apps)- with world wide
acceptance. (Anyone know of anything?) Or am I going way off course
here....(probably, it's getting late).
Comments welcome (checks comfort food supply)
Christina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Managing an institutional web site [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Kelly
> Sent: 07 December 2005 15:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: response to accessibility statement (was Fixed or variable (was Two queries)
>
> Hi Christine
>
>
>
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>I just read your accessibility policy "....It was our feeling
>>that, after experimenting with both scalable and elastic
>>sites, complying with this checkpoint would undermine the
>>design. This would jeopardise our first objective, which was
>>to show sites could be both accessible AND visually
>>appealing." But the design was only one part of the first
>>objective? I'm confused, :| but more than that disappointed
>>that this statement should come from a web design company
>>that specialises in accessibility. Is it really unattainable?
>>IMHO it's this type of thinking will continue to jeopardise
>>the development of websites that are accessible AND visually
>>appealing. :(
>
>
> I'm not sure which part of the Headscape policy you are referring to, but I
> would agree with the comments on the page that "The trouble is that most web
> designers agree web accessibility is important but few can agree on the best
> way of making a site accessible." Interestingly when I attended the
> "Accessible Design in the Digital World" Conference held in Dundee on
> 24-25th August 2005 a speaker from GAWD (Guild Of Accessible Web Designers"
> made exactly the same point.
>
> On the subject of use of Flash, as the page says, Flash can be made
> accessible - and it should be noted that the WCAG 2.0 draft (unlike WCAG
> 1.0) is tolerant of proprietary formats.
>
> Some of these points were addressed in a paper on "Forcing Standardization
> or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real
> World" which was given at the International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on
> Web Accessibility held in Chiba, near Tokyo, Japan on 20th May 2005. See
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/
>
> We (myself, Lawrie Phipps, David Sloan, Helen Petrie) argue that the notion
> of universal accessibility is, in general, unattainable, and the aim should
> be for widening participation.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Brian
> ---------------------------------------
> Brian Kelly
> UK Web Focus
> UKOLN
> University of Bath
> BATH
> BA2 7AY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
> Phone: 01225 383943
> FOAF: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly/foaf/bkelly-foaf.xrdf
> For info on FOAF see http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly/foaf/
>
>
>
>>Best regards,
>>Christina
>>
>>PS Was just about to send this as your email asking for
>>review came in, hence the quick response.
>>
>>
>>Paul Boag wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>FIXED OR VARIABLE WIDTH
>>>This is one of the biggest debates that exist on the web
>>
>>and one where people never agree! However, from a purely
>>accessible point of view fixed width can prove a problem if
>>you are going for more than single A compliancy.
>>
>>>Checkpoint 3.4 (Priority 2) says:
>>>Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language
>>
>>attribute values and stylesheet property values.
>>
>>>Our interpretation of this is that you cannot use pixel
>>
>>values to fix the width.
>>
>>>You may find this page from our new site useful:
>>>
>>
>>http://headscape.headscapedev.com/text/159/our_accessibility_p
>>olicy.html
>>
>>>Please note this is not a live site so do not pass the url around.
>>>
>>>However, to complicate the issue still further there are
>>
>>some who argue that pixels are not an absolute value! See:
>>
>>>http://blog.fawny.org/2005/09/21/measures/
>>>
>>>As normal, if you want to chat this over give me a call on
>>
>>01258 453889.
>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Managing an institutional web site
>>
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of K Fearon
>>
>>>Sent: 07 December 2005 11:54
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Two queries
>>>
>>>Apologies for cross posting.
>>>
>>>We're having our web pages redesigned at the moment and a
>>
>>couple of issues
>>
>>>have arisen on which I'd appreciate some feedback.
>>>
>>>Firstly, the designers have advised us to have some intro
>>
>>text on our main
>>
>>>welcome page to make it more friendly to search engines.
>>
>>Currently we only
>>
>>>have links to content, and meta tags. We'd originally cut
>>
>>any text on our
>>
>>>home page as it tends to be uninformative and people don't
>>
>>really read it,
>>
>>>but we might reconsider if they're right. Any comments?
>>>
>>>Secondly, we're having a discussion about fixed width vs
>>
>>relative width
>>
>>>designs. They are keen for us to go for fixed width, but
>>
>>this goes against
>>
>>>accessibility standards. I know a lot of university pages
>>
>>are designed at
>>
>>>a fixed width - was this a point you decided to compromise
>>
>>on? Was the
>>
>>>compromise worth it?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Kriss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------
>>
>>>Web Coordinator Stables S010 Tel: (01904)
>>
>>434682 Fax: 434466
>>
>>>University of York, UK 9-5.15, Mon-Fri
>>
>>http://www.york.ac.uk/coord/
>>
>>--
>>Christina McGuire
>>Web Development Officer
>>Library & Information Services (Room 410A)
>>National Institute for Medical Research
>>Ridgeway, Mill Hill
>>London, NW7 1AA
>>
>>Tel: +44 (0)20 8816 2233
>>http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."
>>
>
>
--
Christina McGuire
Web Development Officer
Library & Information Services (Room 410A)
National Institute for Medical Research
Ridgeway, Mill Hill
London, NW7 1AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 8816 2233
http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."
|
