accessibility legislation
- Started
- Last post
- 42 Responses
- unknown0
faslh has got accessibilty options in ti already
- jh0
flash has limited accessibility for screen readers.
I think the next 12 months will see me studying to become a leading consultant in accessibility -
- Seph0
interesting thread
"no flash, few (no) graphics, no links in the text and no CSS."
Surely this is an exageration?!
Our company has been looking into the W3C standards, and we have already gained 2 new clients as a result, CSS is in fact highlighted as the one of the best ways to create good looking sites that are still accessible.
In Italy, the standards are only obligatory if the site is facilitating a public service, there is absolutely no limit on images, or flash (however fundamental text must not be viewed as image or swf), the only important change is standards of syntax, that allows all the different browsers and platforms to work without error. That to me, makes a lot of sense.
- unknown0
believe it when I see it though Seph (no disrespect)... I think the browsers all need to behave the same to start with... I think I might take up market gardening instead... or fishing... the bloke down at the river I can see out of the window is having a right laugh!
- vespa0
Which points are Flash MX sites less accessible than html?
They have small file sizes, bookmarkable anchors, text equivalents... What do they fall down on?
- Seph0
Thats entirely the point, creating standards as the lowest common denominator between all the platforms. That way more pressure will be put on the incompatible browsers to get their act together.
dards rather than vica versa.Far better if a world wide concensus is drawn up, rather than particluar standards depending on a country, but who will police a WW standard? That way taking on a multilingual site wont become complete legislative suicide
- unknown0
it boils down to that they'll crsuh the big peiple like tescos and waitrose to get them on side... pretty much the same way Microsoft gets treated
- jh0
I think flash fails (and don't get me worng here since flash pays much of my mortgage) since you can't resize text and also the majority of the readers still don't read it well enough.
I really do hope I'm exagerating re CSS, no flash etc, but logic suggests I'm not since these tools/technologies limit to a very specific "way of seeing the web (a site)".
Accessibility does feel like lowest common denominator which means that without browser standards the end user experience will be poorer rather than richer.
I see this as all broadcastes being required to make TV in b/w to cater for those who do not have colour sets. All our experiences get compromised.
I would rather see development with screen readers so they could read the existing content than change all the existing content so that it can be read.
I very much support accessibility I'm just concerned how legislation will affect "design" of accessible web sites.
- jh0
I too (like Engagestudio) have wondered about the easier option of another career path ~ sometimes the web is just so flakey. It makes me deeply worried that I depend on it to survive financially!
- unknown0
back from lunch.....
look its quite simple, mass market sites need to be accessible to everyone... It doesnt apply to skate shop sites and the like because they arent mass market...
I really wouldnt get worried about it. In general, as a matter of course, websites are becoming better designed anyway... BBC et al...
Its just making sure everyone catches up, entirely sensible if you ask me...
my favourite sites Ive done are
http://www.cheltglos.co.uk
http://www.mfi.co.uk/mfi/they look ok, and work, why shouldnt other sites adhear to the same?
my favorite site on the web is
http://www.iht.com/frontpage.htm…
it fuckin rocks, great funtionality,accessible and great design... Its not all about tweens
- Blofeldt0
Has anyone here got a screen reader?
Can yu get around the Flash problem by including NOSCRIPT tags after your flash detect, where you use basic HTML for links and stuff?
- unknown0
often all accessible means is a html equivalant for bits of flash
- plamenski0
So, Jacob Nielsen will be the next Bill Gates. No?
- mbr0
This sounds potentially horrendous, but I would guess that it is very limited in it's imjplementation. Perhaps down the road it will force MM to incorporate some usability concerns into flash.
I know with buildings we have the ADA (Americans Disability Act) that required all public buildings to retro fit handicapped entrances. Slopes of ramps lessened, door widths, bathroom stalls, on and on. Many were sued for not complying (and still are).
But that's public buildings. The limitations for what you do in your own home are minimal. Also, if you stick and elevator in a building somewhere, you can put as many fancy stairs all over the place, as long as a certain percentage of the building is accessible.So with this, I don't see a terrible text based web in the future, just a legal guideline for largely public sites (like musuems, large ecommerce, gov't, etc. mostly sites that probably already incorporate it). For the private stuff, it's your choice, it's your 'freedom'.
- dessalles0
I haven't read the full article yet but it bothers me that the people behind this legislation are completly ignoring the efforts of the W3 - who I think have been doing an excellent job in working towards more accessible sites. Their whole agenda is to seperate the style of a page form the information ( i.e. CSS and XML). The way the W3's progress in standardization is going, I don't think where too far off when all images and aesthetic elements of a page will be contained completly in style sheets.
Its a situation eerily similar to the US refusal to cooperate to the UN.
- dessalles0
A typographical revolution?
I've always felt that limitation does breed innovation.
Hmm...
- plamenski0
A couple of weeks ago, I am sure, I heard Tony Blair saying that he didn't like Flash.
- jh0
The IHT site is good, although I'm not sure it's really doing much from a design perspective - it's neatly laid out and has some tight iconography.
The Govt sites play a big part in some agencies lives - so I guess will accessibility.
I hope that it will mean web sites built with standards all i'm concerned with is who sets the standards and what they may be.
I rember designing sites for 640x480 screen res, with no graphic file larger than 5kb and an etire page weighing in at less that 20kb and frankly it wasn't design it was just "stripping things out". Since then most people have fought to introduce better standards to the web, to make users expect a new set of conventions and the technology has helped too. I don't like the thought of undoing some of those principles on account of govt legislation.
- ribit0
But who is really affected by this?
- Which countries? (UK I presume)
- Which businesses? Is it based on where the company is registered, the server location, or where most (or any) of the customers are?
- Type of business/type of site... Does it apply to say, photo database sites? business service websites?
- Redmond0
I think alot of site would look alot better if they were more text based. Remains to be seen if the text-formating will look serious and professional...