Commissioning websites

[Richard Conyard]

http://www.out-law.com/page-6713

Useful link :-)

[multilingual]

There is an awful lot of press given to these 'regulations' but I cannot for the life of me see how they can be legally enforced.

JB

[Richard Conyard]

This is where we are on tricky ground. Under the 1999 Disability Discrimination Act it is up to the owners of commercial and government websites to take reasonable steps to ensure that their websites are accessible.

The tricky part is that at no point did they say what reasonable steps were.

I believe it is hoped that by defining steps that should be undertaken in commissioning a website, and things to check for on live sites there is a greater awareness of what accessible steps are and as such no excuses in not following them.

[multilingual]

I find it rather puzzling:

If I sell bags of spuds, and my site is not accessible to 50% of the population, then I am losing 50% of my potential market. But that is my problem and no-one elses. Why would someone bring in a regulation enforcing me to display my spuds to a disabled internet user? The disabled user buys from someone else and I lose the sale. Doesn't make any sense to fine me for that!

Now if I ran a government site that contained important and useful information that needed to be read by everyone, and the site was not accessible to certain parts of society then I can see why they might kick up a fuss. That would be the same as putting up HSE material at a work place, but in a position where not everyone can read it.

But I just don't get it when these regulations refer to 'commercial sites'. :?

JB

[Richard Conyard]

On a different angle, but the same argument...

I don't like the fact that on a clear motorway I'm limited by a speed limit that was put in place when cars neither had the power or breaking capabilities of my car. Yet if I speed and I get caught I will be in trouble.

We don't like all laws and regulations, but they are there anyway. It is best to know about them however.

[SillyJokes]

Accesibilty shouldn't be rejected because a well made and accessable site increases the success rate for all users on that site. Don't you want your site to make as many sales as it is possible to squeeze out of it?

They are often better made for search engines too.

While these guidelines are still in their infancy I think a move towards ensuring the web is accessable to all is a great idea rather than letting it become harder and harder for people with disabilities to use which I believe would be the trend otherwise. For instance flash websites are completely inaccessible.

A note to Richard, ye cannae change the laws of physics! A man going at 90 miles an hour hits the windscreen or another vehicle harder than a man travelling at 70. ;)

The speed was put in place based on human reaction speeds too and they haven't changed in the years since it was set.

[Coding Monkey]

For instance flash websites are completely inaccessible.


That's not actually true. I recall this case study from last year: http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0705d.shtml

[SillyJokes]

But wouldn't you agree most flash sites are not accessable?

[creospace]

Remember not all sites are there to sell you something.

I think info based sites definately need to get their house in order first.

Gary

[Coding Monkey]

But wouldn't you agree most flash sites are not accessable?

Yep, I would, but improvements are being made, and I hope it means that Flash websites aren't forever known as being inaccessible because of their current state. Flash MX made some big steps in the right direction, and with the Adobe Suite being released late this year/early 2007, it will certainly progress.

[Agri-Hire]

But wouldn't you agree most flash sites are not accessable?

excuse my ignorance on this, but why are Flash sites not accessible?

Do disabled people use different computers to the rest of us then?

[creospace]

Blindness is a disability, don't forget that :)

This is where most of this talk is focused at the visually impaired. You need special software to read out allowed to you what the site says, it can't as such read flash sites.

There are alternatives and ways around it.

Gary

[Coding Monkey]

Do disabled people view the things on the computer different to "the rest of us" then?

Lack of screen reader support, inadjustable text sizes, inaccessible software, etc etc. As I said, that's changing.

[Agri-Hire]

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me.

I will tell you why:

If we have to build our sites so as not to discriminate against disabled people, then we will have to build sites not to discriminate against people who can't read English!!!

So every site will be forced to build sites in 110 languages just so as not to discriminate against Unfoo-foo Baloo who logs in from Zulu land!

Rubbish!

(By the way I am only playing Devil's advocate in the interest of debate :))

[multilingual]

So every site will be forced to build sites in 110 languages just so as not to discriminate against Unfoo-foo Baloo who logs in from Zulu land!




That caught my attention! :) Potential future business!

Seriously though, don't these regulations about accessibility assume that the viewer will be surfing in English? Only 34% of internet users are surfing the net in English and we are often asked to translate web pages to cater for foreign visitors.

There is no law that states that in order to live in the UK you have to speak English, so sites that only put up information in English will be discriminating against another minority; a minority based on language and culture rather than disability.

Any thoughts?

JB

[Enigma121]

A side issue, but I feel that this adds to the debate here...

Accessible web sites tend to rank well with search engines. This is because many of the rules established to make content readable to blind users also make it accessible to the search engine (as it doesn't "read" image content either).

So not only will you loose a market share from disabled users from not having an accessible site, your ranking within search engine results will also be dire. Hence your online marketing activities will most likely work out more expensive.

It's worth thinking about before dismissing accessibility as a nice to have.

[SillyJokes]

I utterly agree with Enigma.

People with disabilities often include people with visual impairment but also people with learning and reading difficulties and others with reasons they can't use a mouse the way most of us do.

Those with problems reading like dyslexia often like to view a site with their own filters. Some like to make the text a lot larger.

Those whose mouse control is not great sometimes find it hard to locate links to click or to phyically hit the links if lots are crowded together as in a very busy and lengthy left hand menu.

Making improvements for these people make it easier for absolutely everybody using a website. I am sure I have seen figures relating to this.

They aren't a minority who haven't learnt English. They have enough problems with access to physical world without something that could really open their horizons like the internet not being accessable.

And then there are those who just like to surf the net with the pictures turned off. I often find it a total revelation watching how other people surf the net. For instance I never look at the history but a friend always surfs with it open, serverly reducing the size of the site she is looking at.

If you let people view your site the way they want to view it and don't force it to appear how you insist it must you will please those people.

Remember, apart from you, everyone else spends almost all their time on websites other than yours. Let them have your website their way.

[Richard Conyard]

This kind of kicked off whilst I was away...

In regards to the language thing it is a WCAG 1 AAA point. Which probably means absolutely nothing to anyone here, basically according to W3C if you say you are 100% accessible you should cater for other languages. However that level of stringency goes way beyond what is generally accepted.

In regards to PAS78 and the law, I would imagine that most people here would be considered to small fry for anyone to bother, and any existing sites could be said not to count. For new sites however I would make sure that the designer contractually conforms to areas raised in PAS78 and accepts the professional liability involved.

In regards to accessible web design, of the steps that are required to make a site accessible they always make a website a better website. Comments such as "Google is a blind user", still hold water.

Last part, flash can be accessible. Macromedia did a good job of putting accessiblity features into flash, it's just up to flash developers to use them. One good example is one of the Harry Potter flash sites - 100% accessible.

[SillyJokes]

I think the example of the Harry Potter site is good, but imagine the sort of money they could throw at it? Was it an expensive site?

[Richard Conyard]

That I don't know, I believe it was done by a company called Lightmaker based in Tunbridge Wells ( I may be wrong here). They are a very good company with some huge clients, so I can't imagine it was inexpensive.

As with all of these things they do take a little extra time, so the cost would be that little bit higher.

[mattk]

The two things that I don't particularly like about all this accessibility is that there are no hard and fast rules as to what IS accessible - and that reports like the one in the original post cost money.

[Richard Conyard]

The report is a guide. It's useful for developers, but not essential.

If you want technical info etc. then you are best going to : http://www.w3.org/WAI/ or http://www.accessifyforum.com

Both of which offer plenty of advice for free.