|
| |
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2830
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Nambucca / Kempsey, Australia
Status: online
 |
Bending the laws? - 9/26/2005 8:10:41
A few months ago I read in a local newspaper about the launch of the Albury City Council's new website. As you do, I went to have a look at it. Apart from the obvious image repeat error at screen resolution 1280x1024, I also noticed that they claimed WCAG-AA compliance, well actually they included the compliance stickers with the following note despite the opening page alone containing 8 errors, 111 warnings and 826 access warnings:
quote:
W3C Triple-A Conformance: Over 95% of the pages on the AlburyCity Web site conform to W3C Triple-A Conformance (highest level).
W3C Double-A Conformance: The remaining pages conform to W3C Double-A Conformance. These pages are mainly those containing forms. Please contact us if you need help with these pages.
Tonight I've been doing some work for my partner and found the Legislation NSW website extremely slow even with Broadband, and so I thought I'd check out their Accessibility section. Their site uses frames, and on their FAQ's regarding accessibility, they actually state the following:
quote:
Q. Accessibility issues. What special arrangements are available for users with access difficulties (for example other data formats or the use of frames)?
A. Contact the Parliamentary Counsel's Office for details. Phone (02) 9228 7139 or e-mail parliamentary.counsel@pco.nsw.gov.au.
If you need to use a "frames-free" site it is suggested that you access NSW legislation from the AustLII site: http://www.austlii.edu.au.
NSW legislative data is provided on a weekly basis by the PCO for use on the AustLII site, which does not use frames.
That's right, they actually tell you (in a page containing frames), that if you don't want to use their site, then go elsewhere!
Is it just me, or do others find this kind of response to the question of accessibility far from acceptable? Government departments are bound by State and Federal laws regarding accessibility, but to me at least, it appears they think they can bend these laws to suit themselves.
Like, is it acceptable to place a commonly known compliance sticker on your site and state next to it that your site is "almost" compliant? Likewise is it acceptable for a government department to acknowledge accessibility only by way of admitting their site isn't and sending users to another site instead?
Nicole
_____________________________
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
) Apparently they like the scrolling text and other 'interesting' things too much to get rid of them completely. They do have what they call a "W3C" version, which lacks the scrolling text etc. they so love. Apparently it's a question of economics, and funds just aren't available to do everything they'd like to 
. I have however been asked to look at the site critically with regard to accessibility and they'll consider my suggestions. 
