RE: [email protected] - Email found in subject - RE: [C MS] Accessibility

Hi Steve,
I'm sure your comments will spark a fair bit of debate.

> I cant find anywhere in these standards an assertion that the only way to
be comliant is via one version of content.

Level 1 of the WAI guidelines includes the following:

"If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a
link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has
equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the
inaccessible (original) page."

So my understanding is that if you want to comply with level 2 or 3 of the
guidelines then you have to go for the 'one size fits all' approach.

> Taking my vendor hat off for a second - the WAI / Bobby standards / US 508
or whatever else you choose do nothing other than cripple creative web
design flair by setting a whole series of constraints that if you followed
every single one would effectively leave a site looking very bland.

This is a common myth, which I have to confront often at work as those
superior to me seem to believe it. 'Why should we make everything boring for
the sake of one or two users?'. The bedrock of the one size fits all
approach is semantic mark up with CSS. As sites like CSS zen garden have
proved this approach can actually offer a whole range of extra design
possibilities. Larger sites like Blogger and Wired have successfully adopted
this approach without becoming bland. Gallery sites like cssvault are also
starting to include a number of larger sites rather than just blogs or
smaller geeky sites.

Of course it is a hotly disputed (and rather tedious) debate as to whether
browsers are ready for full CSS pages. I just thought it was inaccurate of
you to say that the guidelines 'do nothing other than cripple creative web
design flair'. 

As a side note, one of the main reasons that people are unable to adopt the
semantic markup and CSS approach is that the people editing their pages do
not have the expertise or knowledge of HTML to do it properly. This way of
working is actually much easier to adopt if you're using a CMS (and
therefore keeping people away from the HTML). It'd be nice to see vendors
pushing this as a reason to adopt a CMS, rather than the multi version
approach. I recently attended a presentation by the former chairman of the
British Blind Computer users association where he stated that blind users
would often avoid using text only versions as these had a history of being
inaccurate and not properly mirroring the full graphic site.

Just my opinion ;-)

Rob



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Williams [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 10 September 2004 10:09
To: Austin, Darrel; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [email protected] - Email found in subject - RE:
[CMS] Accessibility

not sure I agree with you on that one Darrel - think of the following;
A blind reader hits a website that it built in the classical way - with web
accessible being provided through one version - the blind reader has to tab
through all of the navigation on every page to get to the content on the
same page (largely because for abled individuals a navigation (in the west)
is at the top or the left of a page (both visually and in source code terms
- which is what the blind reader follows) - think about how frustrating that
would be to a blind person having to hear the navigation over and over again
to get to the content. To get around this result web pages built for e.g.
blind readers are typically built back to front with the content being
displayed at the top and the navigation at the bottom (both visually and in
source code terms) so when the blind reader selects a page - they get the
content first and then the navigation to select where else to go to (to see
an example go to http://www.ilt.ac.uk/variants/textonly/default.asp) - if
you compare this to the normal version http://www.ilt.ac.uk/ - then you have
two versions (even though the content is largely the same).
 
Taking my vendor hat off for a second - the WAI / Bobby standards / US 508
or whatever else you choose do nothing other than cripple creative web
design flair by setting a whole series of constraints that if you followed
every single one would effectively leave a site looking very bland. However
I cant find anywhere in these standards an assertion that the only way to be
comliant is via one version of content. (hat back on) We have another
customer who has created a WAI compliant version as an option at the same
time as retaining their glossy one. Typically when I am talking to customers
in the public sector it is one of the frustrations frequently highlighted.
Do they deliver an all encompassing single look and feel that is compliant
as far as the standards require - but leaves them very little room for flair
and a very bland site - or do they produce different versions of the same
content that allow individuals with 'other' abilities to gain accessibility
- but not at the cost of presenting their abled users with a look and feel
that will provide visual branding, stickiness etc etc. After all - if you
take a hard look at web accessibility then it is about providing the best
access to content for people with other abilities - and since e.g. someone
who is colour blind has different issues to someone who is totally blind
then strictly speaking they have different requirements from each other (and
in my view can be presented with different versions of the same content that
cater for their ability)
 
I believe that it is very important that all users - whatever their ability
are able to read content - I dont believe that is best served by trying to
cram it into one version. Taking the above example given - sure you could
create one version that is blind reader compatible and do away with the text
only version - but what a crappy experience 'blind' visitors would have. In
fact I would say that producing one version of a web page that adheres to
all standards would be a bit like 'communism for web design' - everyone gets
the same (look and feel) - but nobody is happy with it......
Regards
Steve Williams
RedDot Solutions UK

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Austin, Darrel [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Thu 09/09/2004 21:34 
	To: [email protected] 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [email protected] - Email found in subject - RE:
[CMS] Accessibility
	
	

	cms-list wrote: 
	> Does that sound like a bad idea: 
	> 
	> To optimize the user experience for both sets of users, we're 
	> thinking of 
	> having a separate url (like accessible.company.com) which would 
	> basically be 
	> the print-only version of the site, plus some form of navigation. 

	A well planned, well structured site shouldn't require separate
versions. 
	Accessibility improves the user experience for all...just not those
that 
	rely on assistive technology. 

	Granted, a lot of commercial CMS will tought the 'incredible'
ability to 
	plaster a flash animation on a page over thoughtful consideration of

	usability and accessibility issues in their product. 

	-Darrel 
	_______________________________________________ 
	cms mailing list 
	[email protected] 
	Subscription controls: 
	http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/cms 
	Netiquette FAQ and related CMS lists - [CMS-Forum], [CMS-Meta],
[CMS-PR], [CMS-Develop] 
	http://www.cmsreview.com/NetiquetteFAQ.html