Call for disabled internet revolt (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

womble -> Call for disabled internet revolt (3/10/2006 6:24:25)

quote:

Six years since the Disability Discrimination Act made it illegal to produce an inaccessible website in the UK, the laws have gone limp through disuse.

Even the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which has been more diligent in its pursuit of ignorant web owners, has only brought legal action against two sites, and both of those cases where settled out of court.

Rather than complaining against inaccessible websites, it seems that disabled people are just going to a site they can use, but the DRC (Disability Rights Commission) with the launch of it's own code this week produced with the British Standards Institute are urging disabled peple to complain.

Call for disabled internet revolt

PAS78 Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites



Kitka -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/10/2006 6:52:45)

quote:

Call for disabled internet revolt


But dear Womble ... my internet is not at all disabled. Does this mean I am allowed to shower in the morning, lest I revolt all those who come within sniffing distance?

[sm=whistling.gif]



womble -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/10/2006 6:59:07)

[:D] silly Kitka! [;)]

(I'm still searching for more info on what the PAS actually contains)



womble -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/10/2006 7:46:53)

It seems the PAS is aimed more at commissioners rather than designers. More info on this thread over at the Accessify Forums.

DRC's formal investigation report on web accessibility (the PAS was developed as a result of this report)





spitfire -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/11/2006 12:24:58)

Regret to say initial responses from potential new clients are not positive. They revolve around comments such as:
I'm commissioning you to build an accessible website and if you do not, the responsibility and any financial penalty is yours. My people/solicitors know how to cover that in a contract. If you need to buy a book for £30+ because you don't know how to do it, then do so, but don't expect me and probably every other client to buy the book as well.
I can't deny they have a point.

Somehow, the committee of BSI author-types seem to think that, if they cannot convert website developers, they can convert website commissioners. I really don't think this "standard" from the BSI will have any effect whatsoever until or unless website owners are taken to court AND only allowed to settle "publicly". The accessibility community does not need "standards". It does not need a whispering campaign. It needs strong legal precedent, it needs court and press publicity, it needs... so much more than laying the sole responsibility on the commissioners and expecting them to make a leap of faith, just in case "the law" catches up with them. I do think this is yet another seriously diluted initiative and a lost opportunity.

I have asked some of my visually-impaired contacts to complain to the Disability Rights Commission and start a legal action. One complained to the DRC a few weeks ago - no response whatsoever, nada, nill, zilch. Guess the DRC folks were awaiting the report to see what it contained [8D] I will not hold my breath waiting for any more of my contacts to take me up on this or to become testers. [:(]



Donkey -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/11/2006 20:00:10)

As a bit of an outsider to the accessibility industry, I think you are a bit too near to it. Legal Action will only benefit the lawyers and perhaps a few disabled people will feel they have had a small victory, but the only thing that will change the pervading attitude of the site owners is market forces.

Simply put; when they start to find real extra profits because their site is accessible they will enthuse about the idea and the practice will grow because it works. If of course it doesn't work then it will never be more than something that everyone agrees is a nice idea. So the answer is for disabled people to come out in their droves and buy stuff from good accessible sites. If after a year or so they don't, then the only conclusion we can reach is that accessibility is not that important to the people that it is designed to enable.



spitfire -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/12/2006 5:17:06)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Donkey
I think you are a bit too near to it. Legal Action will only benefit the lawyers...

You are quite correct, I am extremely close to accessibility issues (of all types). It has been a major part of my job description for nine years. And yes, many lawyers will benefit from legal action. There are also quite a few of them known for pro-bono work on disability and human rights issues.
quote:

Simply put; when they start to find real extra profits because their site is accessible they will enthuse about the idea and the practice will grow because it works. If of course it doesn't work then it will never be more than something that everyone agrees is a nice idea. So the answer is for disabled people to come out in their droves and buy stuff from good accessible sites. If after a year or so they don't, then the only conclusion we can reach is that accessibility is not that important to the people that it is designed to enable.

Now we need to understand the commercial mindset. Many more people buy our products from our website. Why?:
We made the site accessible, we increased our product lines, we refocussed our business, we bought cheaper, we cut prices, we made more special offers, we improved our courier distribution, we improved our staff training and recruitment, we made the site more visually exciting and, no doubt, contributions from all other "Departmental Heads" eager to be identified with the success of the "business" not the success of the "website".

Later this year I return to the commercial world. My mindset began to change back a few months ago, but any websites I have influence over or responsibility for in the future will be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. Not because I persuade myself or others that n people who are disabled will purchase n extra items that may or may not be totally irrelevant to their lifestyles. Not because it will give us commercial advantage over our competitors - if we can't nail an accessible website as the reason for our success, we sure can't nail it as their competitive advantage. It is because online accessibility and inclusivity is the right way to go, just like physical accessibility to premises.

The additional cost/time implications of accessibility/inclusivity? So low as to be barely (if at all) discernible on the Finance Department's abacus.





womble -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/12/2006 6:49:50)

quote:

The additional cost/time implications of accessibility/inclusivity? So low as to be barely (if at all) discernible on the Finance Department's abacus.

I don't want to get into another "business case" v. "the right thing to do" debate, but the fact is that often accessible design, at least basic accessibility, is good coding practice, that for a new build doesn't cost anything extra (use relative font sizes, remembering the <alt> attributes etc.). Another big part of it's making sure your site is usable - a lot of which is common sense and good design. Usability is something that's going to benefit your site whether your visitors are disabled or not. You have a usable (and accessible) site and it can only benefit your business (how long do you hang around a site that's not easy to use before clicking off to shop somewhere that's easier to use?)

One of my recent purchases was "Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability" (Steve Krug, New Riders, 2006) and much of what's in the book, for example well planned navigation, designing so the message of your site is clear and easy to understand overlaps heavily with accessibility.

There seems to be a myth that somehow accessibility is removed from web design, something that you add on afterwards, but it's something that should be integral to the design process.

Like Spit, I'm close to accessibility issues (though I'm sure most of the disabled people I know don't think of themselves as an "industry" - they're people who happen to be disabled and are finding that though the web can make their daily life easier, there are in some cases barriers to them using the web), and yes, there are some lawyers who would benefit from disabled people making more of a fuss about barriers on the web, but most of the people I work with are within the voluntary sector where legal advice and assistance is free.

I agree with Spit's earlier post - commissioners of websites on the whole aren't going to be jumping up and down with eagerness trying to get their hands on the new PAS - they pay a web designer to create them a site and so long as it does what they want and doesn't land them in trouble they're happy. They're not too interested in the technical bits of how it does it.

The point I was trying to make (probably not too well) with my original post was that it's recognised that current laws don't seem to be all they're cracked up to be, and aren't that effective, but more and more nowadays disabled people, and organisations who work with disabled people are more aware of their rights, and more likely to assert them, and if disabled people do start to become more vocal (and after urging them to, organisations like the DRC do follow that up with action), then we could see more disabled people complaining about inaccessible websites and more legal action.



spitfire -> RE: Call for disabled internet revolt (3/12/2006 9:19:36)

Well said, womble.

So far, however, "we" are reliant on quangoes to influence the law of the land. Who writes those laws? Let's consider much stronger lobbying of our MPs as well as trying to persuade the DRC to (buy a copy of PAS78 and) get moving on this. BTW, if/when I find the time I intend producing an independent lobbying site for just this purpose and I promise to keep at people I know who have problems with some sites - honest.[:D]

Now these "guidelines" stop short of demanding/recommending level AA and as you say, common sense design, logical navigation, semantic structure and valid coding are virtually guaranteed to produce at least level A. So, IMHO, developers and owners of sites so designed must be wondering what all the fuss is about. The others are a different matter, but vocal nonetheless. There remain many "olde worlde" developers "shouting the odds" about something they do not actually understand. However, they are a bit suspicious of the big "A" because it may show their own developments in a less than positive light.

I don't think real business/commercial arguments should be ever be discounted. Web developers are not business-savvy by definition. Those who produce sites for their own businesses may be more so, but they may be less technically able and easily "turned" by others who claim, "Lack of accessibility on my site has made no difference whatsoever to my business." A developer of accessible sites with a good measure of business acumen should do well.

Last year I joined one of a chain of health clubs. No disabled access or err... facilities. I became vocal and was threatened with loss of membership and up-front fees. "What on earth use could "they" have for physical exercise etc., etc., etc." A quiet word about the business benefits with the CEO (and the Venture Capitalist behind the finance[;)]) and guess what? They are now looking for a builder, I am looking for an accessible website designer for each of the clubs, I have a new job with the VC and will also help to set up a Business Angels network to finance accessible-only websites for (deliberately) not-for-profit organisations.

Slowly but surely, old gel, slowly but surely.[:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625