Ok, here's controversial...

[Eagle]

*
http://www.drc-gb.org/

With me so far?

Logo not exactly sharp and clear is it?

And when I mouse over some of the menus, where are the 'alt tags'?

Spot anything else "non-compliant" with the site?...

[DuaneJackson]

That's terrible - beyond words. It's almost like it was made deliberatley as some kind of ironic joke.

How do they get away with it?

[Enigma121]

Well to be fair, the home page passes the automated WAI Level 1 accessibility checks. So I'm sure by some stretch of the imagination they feel they have done enough.

It shows that when it comes to accessiblity you can't buy a tool, wave a magic wand and sort your site out. When it comes down to it you need to hire a professional to ensure compliance.

[Eagle]

*
They should really be whiter than white though. :roll: :wink:

[vigo]

I don't have time to do a full assesment of the site but from my two minute look of the source it appears to comply with WCAG-A (but not WCAG-AA because it uses tables for layout).

Two things Mark:
There are no such thing as "alt tags" - they are "alt attributes", and;
Having a tooltip popup when the mouse cursor is moved over an image with an alt attribute is a behavious of MSIE and is against the HTML specification - a tooltip is appropriate if the image has a title attribute though.

Always good to hold people to high standards :)

Nath

[Enigma121]

*
They should really be whiter than white though. :roll: :wink:

Oh absolutely I agree. I would have thought that a disability organisation would have been working to level 3 compliance not level 1.

To be fair http://www.rnib.org haven't got there yet, but have clearly put in a little more effort than the site first mentioned.

[vigo]

Keeping in the spirit of the thread, here's controvesial: Level 3 accessibility (WCAG-AAA) is impossible to achieve.

Good to aim for, and I think content & website providers should forfill as many checkpoints from Level 3 as possible, but impossible in reality.