RE: Accessibility

....Hi Vlad....re you comment about the vendors searching for a problem to a solution.....I suspect that the origins or repurposing content for output came more through multi channel requirements (WAP, iDTV etc) than because of the web accessibility issues - it just so happens that the same solution used to meet the requirements of customers in the multi channel environments can also be used for WAI....
 
I also dont find your comment on the hammer and nail to be relevant (and also slightly condescending)- both the WAI and the RNIB (see quote below) talk about the issues in maintaining more than one version of output to cater for other abilities - the difference is that the RNIB highlights that this is if you are not using a CMS - or put another way a CMS is seen as a method of removing this issue - hardly a hammer looking for a nail - and more of a solution to a problem.........
 
As mentioned in the previous mail - I dont disagree with the use of CSS for layout - I believe it is the future - but I stress the future....please correct me if I am wrong but CSS does not render in IE pre 4.5 and NS pre 4.0 - it only part renders in IE5 and only in IE5.5+ can it be said to be browser compatible.........how is that providing accessability ?!.......One of our public sector customers in the legal profession who has gone down the route of using CSS for layout has had to produce a text only version to cater for the needs of earlier browsers to be truly accessible. Or put another way you gain accessability in one direction but loose it in another if you only use CSS for layout.....in order for our customer to be true accessible they have had to create two versions (back the the original question of needing more than one version) - the alternative being that they discriminate against anyone who is using an older browser....which if typical log stats are anything to go by are probably a larger number than being catered for by using CSS for layout to provide web accessability.......
 
To take the phrase you have lifted out of the page on the RNIB website and lift another one in the same document  :-)
 
"......Text only versions of websites tend not to be equivalent versions of graphical and media rich versions. 

Maintaining dual versions of a website can become costly. If not running on a Content Management System text versions make more work in the long run as both versions need to be updated simultaneously. Ultimately, not designing for accessibility could lead to an expensive retrofit in the future"

The article to which you relate (as discussed in my previous mail) makes the assumption (as does the WAI paragraph) that a) the content is NOT the same and b) that the site is not using a CMS to ensure that that content is being produced as a result of one times effort and not two +........ 

If the content given in a format that is viewable by people with other abilities is 'less' than that being provided to other viewers then it is quite understandable they they would feel excluded and as in the previously given example of the chairman who felt this was the case - but I stress again - with a CMS there is no need for this.

As we stand right now - the customer is faced with a dilemma - do they stay with HTML standards and use versions of content to cater for WAI - do they stick with one version and dumb it down to the point where it is accessible - or opt for CSS layout (either accepting that it excludes viewers with earlier browsers - or creating a seperate version for them until such time as its safe to say that all browsers are compatible)...........if you can think of any more please add - as its a topic I have to discuss on a regular basis and am always open to new views on the same.....

....whilst on the topic of the website look and feel - your chosen website is a perfect example of what gets lost in look and feel in the desire to compromise....if that is the result of producing one website fit for all to be web accessible......hmmmmmm......not sure I could successfully sell the same look and feel to a commercial sector S&P / FTSE 100 company - I think they would want to stick with a glossy version and a web accessible one........

Regards

Steve

 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Vlad Alexander (XStandard) [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Fri 10/09/2004 12:46 
	To: Steve Williams; [email protected]; [email protected] 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [email protected] - Email found in subject - RE: [CMS]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