Comments on: Don’t Provide an Accessibility Statement http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/ A pragmatic approach to web standards and accessibility Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:21:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Defining A Good Accessibility Statement « Clear Helper http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-104135 Defining A Good Accessibility Statement « Clear Helper Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:11:03 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-104135 [...] Standards Schmandards: Don’t Provide an Accessibility Statement [...] [...] Standards Schmandards: Don’t Provide an Accessibility Statement [...]

]]> By: Just another day… » Blog Archive » Are Accessibility Statements Useful? http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-68780 Just another day… » Blog Archive » Are Accessibility Statements Useful? Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:33:13 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-68780 [...] question the usefulness of accessibility statements. The most notable of these, by Rosie Sherry and Peter Krantz, conclude that accessibility statements are not useful and should therefore be avoided. Reading [...] [...] question the usefulness of accessibility statements. The most notable of these, by Rosie Sherry and Peter Krantz, conclude that accessibility statements are not useful and should therefore be avoided. Reading [...]

]]> By: NovaDexeus » Blog Archive » Podcast 61: Accessibility Statements http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-46696 NovaDexeus » Blog Archive » Podcast 61: Accessibility Statements Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:20:35 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-46696 [...] Just Say No [...] [...] Just Say No [...]

]]> By: PGT http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-40890 PGT Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:43:42 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-40890 So, is this a bad thing? http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickgtracy/accessibility.html I have seen precious few examples here of Accessibility Statements and why they might be good or bad. So, is this a bad thing? http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickgtracy/accessibility.html

I have seen precious few examples here of Accessibility Statements and why they might be good or bad.

]]> By: » Blog Archive » Accessibility, Usability and Resizing Widgets - StevenClark.com.au http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-20241 » Blog Archive » Accessibility, Usability and Resizing Widgets - StevenClark.com.au Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:21 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-20241 [...] text manually. I’m a big fan of providing extra information, reminiscent of the now faux pas accessibility page heavily campaigned against not so long ago. In the big picture I’m a fan of these documents [...] [...] text manually. I’m a big fan of providing extra information, reminiscent of the now faux pas accessibility page heavily campaigned against not so long ago. In the big picture I’m a fan of these documents [...]

]]> By: Michael Hart http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-2719 Michael Hart Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:25:21 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-2719 I’m a BLIND systems programmer and my work includes web development. As a user of adaptive technology, I don’t tend to go looking for these statements and most of us are aware of the accepted conventions for navigational assistance. However, new user’s will learn something from help/navigational information as will everyone else, so this should be provided, assumeing it is not redundant. Indeed I feel this information should be part of the more general “about our website” pages as opposed to the “accessibility” pages. I’ve seen the accessibility statement used to do everything but help users with disabilities, yes most of the information that should be here can just as correctly be put into the “about our website” pages but some things can’t, most notably the list of known accessibility issues and related helpful information as such things would unbalance the help pages. Websites should now be designed and implemented with the WCAG in mind, so including a statement of compliance is redundant information. Indeed this type of statement is of no practical benefit to anyone, unless work is underway on a legacy system (in which case this is helpfull). However this information does show commitment to good practises, so I don’t feel it’s a bad thing to have unless the statement is wrong. I’m a BLIND systems programmer and my work includes web development.

As a user of adaptive technology, I don’t tend to go looking for these statements and most of us are aware of the accepted conventions for navigational assistance.

However, new user’s will learn something from help/navigational information as will everyone else, so this should be provided, assumeing it is not redundant. Indeed I feel this information should be part of the more general “about our website” pages as opposed to the “accessibility” pages.

I’ve seen the accessibility statement used to do everything but help users with disabilities, yes most of the information that should be here can just as correctly be put into the “about our website” pages but some things can’t, most notably the list of known accessibility issues and related helpful information as such things would unbalance the help pages.

Websites should now be designed and implemented with the WCAG in mind, so including a statement of compliance is redundant information. Indeed this type of statement is of no practical benefit to anyone, unless work is underway on a legacy system (in which case this is helpfull).

However this information does show commitment to good practises, so I don’t feel it’s a bad thing to have unless the statement is wrong.

]]> By: Mike Elledge http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1079 Mike Elledge Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:08:15 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-1079 My two cents: there is no reason why there shouldn't be both a site map and an accessibility page on a site. They have different intentions. The problem with most accessibility pages is that they are rarely written for the people who need them, i.e., persons using adaptive technology. They can be helpful, if they include information about accesskeys, the presence of headings, skip links and the like, which tell persons using adaptive technology how to navigate through a site more easily. I think the key is to create greater awareness about how to design effective and meaningful accessibility pages, so they become useful components of websites, rather than puffery. So, I take my hat off to all of you concerned about this issue. Spread the word! My two cents: there is no reason why there shouldn’t be both a site map and an accessibility page on a site. They have different intentions. The problem with most accessibility pages is that they are rarely written for the people who need them, i.e., persons using adaptive technology. They can be helpful, if they include information about accesskeys, the presence of headings, skip links and the like, which tell persons using adaptive technology how to navigate through a site more easily.

I think the key is to create greater awareness about how to design effective and meaningful accessibility pages, so they become useful components of websites, rather than puffery. So, I take my hat off to all of you concerned about this issue. Spread the word!

]]> By: Paul Milne http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-862 Paul Milne Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:38:46 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-862 If an accessibility statement has any use at all, it should be to help a user with disabilities, most likely using some sort of assistive technology, to use the site. To that end, the user should be able to assume that their browser will "just work" like the rest of us. An accessiblity statement's greatest usefulness is to spell out where their browser might NOT just work. "This site uses Javascript in order to do blah blah blah. If you do not have Javascript enabled, this will happen." "This site reloads pages when you fill in a form field, with no indication that the page has reloaded." "Help pages in this web site always open in new windows." The other use might be to explain the navigation and page elements to those, particularly visually disabled, users who might need a bit of help. "This site has two menus: the first menu has contact, site map, etc., the second menu has Help, news, etc." "The navagation menu on this site changes depending on which area of the site you are in. Make sure to check the navigation menu to see what area-specific options are available." You could put any information about specifications etc. into a separate "Site Specifications" page for those who like such things. If an accessibility statement has any use at all, it should be to help a user with disabilities, most likely using some sort of assistive technology, to use the site.

To that end, the user should be able to assume that their browser will “just work” like the rest of us. An accessiblity statement’s greatest usefulness is to spell out where their browser might NOT just work.

“This site uses Javascript in order to do blah blah blah. If you do not have Javascript enabled, this will happen.”

“This site reloads pages when you fill in a form field, with no indication that the page has reloaded.”

“Help pages in this web site always open in new windows.”

The other use might be to explain the navigation and page elements to those, particularly visually disabled, users who might need a bit of help.

“This site has two menus: the first menu has contact, site map, etc., the second menu has Help, news, etc.”

“The navagation menu on this site changes depending on which area of the site you are in. Make sure to check the navigation menu to see what area-specific options are available.”

You could put any information about specifications etc. into a separate “Site Specifications” page for those who like such things.

]]> By: Pig Work » Blog Archive » The Orange Coloured Fling-Flang Accessibility Bandwagon http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-813 Pig Work » Blog Archive » The Orange Coloured Fling-Flang Accessibility Bandwagon Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:52:37 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-813 [...] Accessibility Statements were probably never needed and when important people like Roger Johansson and Peter Krantz bring out the tamborines and drums in favour of their departure I’m both interested in the outcome. Particularly because high profile sites like these have a way of producing the orange coloured fling-flang accessiblity bandwagon we’ve all come to know and love over the years. Or perhaps its the yada yada web standards bandwagon. Either way I get the impression things come down to personality rather than common sense at some point. [...] [...] Accessibility Statements were probably never needed and when important people like Roger Johansson and Peter Krantz bring out the tamborines and drums in favour of their departure I’m both interested in the outcome. Particularly because high profile sites like these have a way of producing the orange coloured fling-flang accessiblity bandwagon we’ve all come to know and love over the years. Or perhaps its the yada yada web standards bandwagon. Either way I get the impression things come down to personality rather than common sense at some point. [...]

]]> By: Xavez http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-735 Xavez Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:09:02 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2006/just-say-no/#comment-735 You have a point there, Peter, but I think you're seeing it too much black/white and not enough shades of grey. Is it impossible to provide both an accasibility statement that <strong>everyone</strong> recognises <em>and</em> a good site-help? Things like: <ul> <li>All pages on this site are Bobby AAA approved.</li> <li>WCAG AAA approved.</li> <li>Valid HTML 4.01 Strict</li> </ul> have become more of a brand, indeed, but is that a necessarily a bad thing? Personally I think not: we <em>need</em> some kind of label to make a difference. Labels give people the idea that it was "applied to" the site by a higher authority (e.g. w3c validation), even if they don't understand the contents, it <em>must be a good thing</em>. And it <strong>is</strong> a good thing :). You have a point there, Peter, but I think you’re seeing it too much black/white and not enough shades of grey. Is it impossible to provide both an accasibility statement that everyone recognises and a good site-help? Things like:

  • All pages on this site are Bobby AAA approved.
  • WCAG AAA approved.
  • Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

have become more of a brand, indeed, but is that a necessarily a bad thing? Personally I think not: we need some kind of label to make a difference. Labels give people the idea that it was “applied to” the site by a higher authority (e.g. w3c validation), even if they don’t understand the contents, it must be a good thing. And it is a good thing :).

]]>