RE: Accessibility

Hi Steve,

I would have to agree with Darrel.

Steve, with good intentions, vendors often do things because their technology permits them to, but in the end do more harm. The problem is often vendors have a solution in search of a problem instead of the other way around. I remember we use to recommend the text-only approach too because our XHTML WYSIYWG editor generated pure XML and it was a snap to use XSLT to transform the content to something else like text. In the end, we worked with industry experts in accessibility who made us realize that just because we had a hammer, everything was not a nail.

RNIB says "Providing an alternate text only version of a website can actually reinforce the sense of exclusion that people with disabilities already feel." Source:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_textbasedwebsites.hcsp

To address your issues with navigation and layout, if you build Web sites to standards AND best-practices (no layout tables, column order controlled by CSS positioning, etc), a single site can serve everyone in an equitable manner. Besides, users often customize their browsers to use a CSS file to address their accessibility needs. (In IE, select "Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility... > User Style Sheet") So even if a client builds a "pretty" site, it will not look the same to all users.

Regards,
-Vlad Alexander
XStandard Development Team
Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor
http://xstandard.com




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Williams" <[email protected]>
To: "Austin, Darrel" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 5:09 AM
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 
> 
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> 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