RE: Accessibility

> I just thought it was inaccurate of
you to say that the guidelines 'do nothing other than cripple creative web
design flair'.<

okay okay maybe a bit melodramatic.....but you will be suprised how many times customers have asked for xyz functionality in a spec only to have to point out that if they want to comply with WAI they have to do it another way.....so it does usually involve a compromise....and since that usually means the customer does not get the design they wanted or features they wanted......it does have an impact on what can be done.....

>"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."<

I agree with the statement - but do not agree that this means that all web accessible content has to come from one version - after all this does not address the issue I raised between a blind reader best suited (and compatible) page and a blinder reader / same version as website (and compatible) page...ticking a box and saying 'yep its comaptible' does not make it the best solution. It is also a statement made based NOT upon the assumption that the customer has a CMS and is able to tailor the website output easily and at the same time as generating the normal output. It addresses all websites - and in the abscence of a CMS - it would probably make most sense to produce once fit for all rather than attempt to update multiple outputs. If you look at the area of accessilbility in general - not just IT - then you dont see a 'shoe horn' approach - how often have you gone to a public building to find steps for walking abled and a seperate ramp for wheelchairs or people with walking difficulties - you dont find a set of 'sloping steps' as a compromise - you find a mode of entry that suites the ability. I still dont see why web accessiblilty should be any different - especially given that CMSs lend themselves so well to the total optimisation of all outputs....this issue IS to a certain extent answered (for both CMS and non CMS users) by the emerging CSS use for layout BUT with 95% of websites written to to the HTML standard - it will be a while before CSS layout makes its mark..

>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.<

Again I agree that historically - if a website made any attempt at all - to cater for blind readers that they would often be lacking in information - but surely this is what CMSs have changed - since they allow different versions with the desired amount of re-used content to be displayed and updated at the same time as the normal content. Surely this is also what the standards are aiming to get to - to ensure that companies do ensure that e.g. content made available for blind readers is as up to date as other versions. If you ask the same chairman you highlight (assuming that a CMS was being used and the content displayed for the blind reader was as up todate as the normal website) - would he prefer a tailored output that allows his blind reader to digest the content in a manner that makes it readable  - or - if he would prefer to have to wade through the navigation on each page until he gets to the content - I am fairly sure that I know which he would choose....

>Of course it is a hotly disputed (and rather tedious) debate as to whether
browsers are ready for full CSS pages<

I agree that this will provide the most effective method of controlling layout and catering for standards in the future (when all browsers will work with it - itself an accessiblity issue) - maybe if the initial response had been the same suggestion - I would have felt less inclined to take up the bait.........

Regards
Steve





	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Robert Clarke [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Fri 10/09/2004 11:50 
	To: Steve Williams; Austin, Darrel; [email protected] 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [email protected] - Email found in subject - RE: [CMS] 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