Comments on: Accessibility does not matter?

By: Jason Grant

Jason Grant — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:22:52 +0000

In conversation with Sandi Wassmer (blind accessibility consultant, who can only see 10cm away from her eyes) at London Web Standards on 15th Feb 2010, we seemed to reach the same conclusion that implementing accessibility is all about doing our best with the resources we have available to us (money, time, knowledge, skills, etc.).

Most of the accessibility ‘evangelists’ who rant on about implementing WCAG1/2 to the tee are far removed from the realities of the real, commercial world, within which clients rule with their requirements, based on their (lack of) knowledge about the given subject matter.

More about Sandi’s highly experienced view on the matter here: http://www.londonwebstandards.org/2010/02/lws-february-move-over-web-accessibility-inclusivity-is-heading-straight-at-you-live-blog/

By: Squishy

Squishy — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:34:51 +0000

The Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act always matters. Through websites being accessible and functioning for the disabled, we provide them with more independence and make life easier for those who have to care for them. Being accessible helps make the disabled ‘abled’.

The sad reality is sometimes even government doesn’t meet the AA or AAA requirements, and I’d encourage people to provide feedback to those who don’t.

By: mike foskett

mike foskett — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:01:25 +0000

Ha ha ha, you should post more often

By: mattsbrain

mattsbrain — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:31:33 +0000

@flexewebs Well done, your blog got them snapping! Also you get a http://oo00.eu/ for commenting ‘Bottom line? You are wrong.’ Hilarious!

By: The Blind Buzz on Accessibility « The Blind Buzz

The Blind Buzz on Accessibility « The Blind Buzz — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:19:27 +0000

[...] Accessibility does not matter? « Semantic User Interfaces – The Best Practices – well, it’s a point of view. [...]

By: flexewebs

flexewebs — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:23:51 +0000

My recent blog post cause a micro-avalanche of opinions.I think I was somewhat misunderstood, but it was interesting! http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/access...

By: Jason Grant

Jason Grant — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:21:40 +0000

@Luke You are 100% right! Why was I not doing this from the day 1?!

By: Luke Sheppard

Luke Sheppard — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:55:28 +0000

Amazing what a provocative title will do for your comment count! Haha. I salute you sir.

By: Jason Grant

Jason Grant — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:15:34 +0000

Thanks everyone for commenting so thoroughly. Much appreciated.

I wasn’t trying to state that FaceBook and Google are both search engines or that disabled people use them. I was trying to say that they are both sites who do not care much about SEO, as their means of promotion are of a more viral nature (word of mouth and so on), so Google will not care about being No. 1 search engine ranked on … Google (even though they are!). So clarification there.

Regarding accessibility, my overall argument was that today there exist extra development overheads for mobile solutions and such like which didn’t exist before, where extra accessibility needs to be provided.

In order to balance development resource it’s OK to deliver this extra accessibility through selective and strategic ‘deterioration’ of accessibility within the main/desktop solution of the site based on UXD research based principles (i.e. still providing all the necessary accessibility for the target audience).

So rather than providing AAA accessibility for the sake of it and no mobile solution, we should be able to get away with single A accessibility and a solid mobile solution instead. This approach is much more appropriate and paradoxically much more accessible.

So I can finally understand the principles behind WCAG2.0.

By: Bluray

Bluray — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:31:30 +0000

Nice Article. I come here because the e-mail.