E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Check of an Accessibility Statement

Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)

From: Lisa Snider
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 1:25PM
Subject: Check of an Accessibility Statement
No previous message | Next message →

Hi Everyone,

Delurking to ask a question :) Enjoy the list a lot-I learn so much!

I have created an accessibility statement for my site (don't look at
the site right now, you are seeing the old version of the site still):

http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm

I wanted to get some feedback on it. Does it make sense? Would you add
anything? Delete anything? I have taken the free template from dive
into accessibility (I haven't put up the credits below yet) and
expanded on it and changed it a bit.

Oh and I know that access keys may not be the best idea, however I
have used them for right now...So don't flog me John!! I will likely
be changing this part in the next few months when I get some free
time.

Cheers and thanks

Lisa

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:09PM
Subject: RE: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Well, my personal input is that accessibility statements should be in
policy for those stakeholders and developers creating the content. It is
most useful in large organizations or organizations where you need to
communicate the goals to new users or uninformed users. It does produce
a small amount of awareness when viewed by the public at large, but
publicizing your accessibility statement has little practical use - just
make your content accessible!

I'd also like to point out that NONE of the accessibility testers should
be trusted as verifying section 508 compliance. There is no automated
gold-star, although they have their place as a forensic tool for
studying content. In practical use, I find the W3C validation to be
about of equal use as any of the automated 508 compliance tools.

Regards,

Norman

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:28PM
Subject: RE: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Lisa Snider wrote:
> Oh and I know that access keys may not be the best idea, however I
> have used them for right now...So don't flog me John!!

Heh heh heh.

JF

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:29PM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Lisa Snider wrote:
> I have created an accessibility statement for my site ...
> http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm
> I wanted to get some feedback on it. ...

I have mixed feelings about accessibility statements in general. If a
site has one, it informs users that the developers have at least thought
of accessibility, which is a good thing. It also (usually) contains a
statement about the level of accessibility compliance or conformance,
such as "Meets WCAG 1.0 Level 1 Accessibility Guidelines" or "Section
508 compliant" or something along those lines. That let's the user know
how far you went in your attempt, which can be helpful. And for sites
that use access keys (for better or worse) this is an appropriate place
to explain what those keys are.

However, many users will not click on a link to an accessibility
statement because users typically go to sites for other reasons.
The implication is that users may not ever read any instructions
intended for them (e.g. how to use this site, which shortcuts are for
accesskeys, etc.). All of the explaining that you do will never be read.

Of course, you could say that if users don't read them it's their own
fault. Well, sort of.

Long accessibility statements resemble product warranties and software
license agreements: they're sort of informative if you actually read
them, but there's a lot of extra information that readers almost never
read, and don't really care much about.

Personally, I would keep it as short as possible. Maybe you could just
say that the site meets Level 2 of WCAG and certain elements of level 3,
as you do on the bottom of the page. If nothing else, this information
should be at or near the top of the page.

If you feel you must include the extra information, either put it after
the conformance declaration, or else provide a link to a "detailed
accessibility statement," or something to that effect.

I have never personally placed an accessibility statement on any of my
sites, though I have considered doing so. So far, I haven't felt the
need to. Hopefully, the sites I create will simply work when people with
disabilities access them, without me telling them that I've tried to
make it work for them.

I don't know. I go back and forth. Accessibility statements increase
visibility for accessibility issues, which is great. At the same time,
it seems a little condescending to me, even though it's not meant to be.
It calls attention to the fact that people with disabilities have
special needs and that Web developers must put in extra effort to
accommodate them.

I'm interested to hear what others have to think about accessibility
statements

--
Paul Bohman
Director of Training Products and Services
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu

From: Glenda
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:29PM
Subject: RE: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Paul,

I am tending to agree with you that accessibility statements raise
visibility of accessibility issues [and provides a place to explain
accesskeys if they must be used]. And, maybe raising the visibility is a
solid enough reason to provide one.

Personally, I don't see the point of describing what was done to make the
site accessible. Isn't that similar to entering a building and seeing a
poster describing what the architect did to make the building accessible.
As a wheelchair user, I don't really care as long as I can get to where I
need to go.

But I think posting a brief web accessibility statement or policy can be
beneficial to the organization. In my article "Validating a Vendor:
Evaluating Claims of Accessibility Expertise" in the first issue of the
AccessibleContent magazine [www.accessiblecontent.com], I included asking
the vendor whether they have a web accessibility policy or checking their
site for a policy /statement. Having a publicly stated policy may assist
you in the proposal/bid or interview/presentation process, depending on your
line of work.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Glenda

Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.webaccessibility.biz
Blog: www.webaccessibility.biz/blog

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:30PM
Subject: RE: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Paul Bohman wrote:
>
> I don't know. I go back and forth. Accessibility statements increase
> visibility for accessibility issues, which is great. At the
> same time,
> it seems a little condescending to me, even though it's not
> meant to be.
> It calls attention to the fact that people with disabilities have
> special needs and that Web developers must put in extra effort to
> accommodate them.
>
> I'm interested to hear what others have to think about accessibility
> statements

All,

I believe that an accessibility statement is important, but that it should
be informative rather than declarative. In other words, talking about
accessibility is good, stating a particular level of conformance is
generally not required (and rarely if ever 100% accurate <grin>).

As part of my general development cycle, all my sites have a "web site
policies" page, which includes statements regarding Copyright, Privacy (I
support and use P3P policy statements), PICS labeling (SafeSurf and ICRA),
and Accessibility. Link to this policy page is a standard part of all page
footers. An example can be found at: www.bytowninternet.com/policies

Paul, and accessibility statement need not be *just* for people with
disabilities, and come'on, we all know accessibility benefits all, not just
the disabled:

"Throughout the creation of this web site, Universal Accessibility was a
principle development guideline. Universal Accessibility ensures that all
users can access the content of this site, regardless of the technology they
use. It ensures that users with various disabilities (who may be using
various adaptive technologies) can still access the important content of
this site. It also ensures that users of alternative or cutting edge
technologies such as web enabled cell phones may also access the content.
Universal Accessibility is good for all!" (from my accessibility statement)

I am encouraged to see that the EARL Working Group has once again
reactivated at the W3C. I would love to see EARL become a W3C
Recommendation, and encourage any out there interested in attaching
"accessibility statements" to their web content to read up on EARL. In a
nutshell an EARL (Evaluation And Reporting Language) Report is an XML/RDF
declaration which states results against specific checkpoints - it can be
WCAG, Section 508, or a custom check. The "report.rdf" file could then be
linked via <link rel> to each document - slick!

* http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
* http://wats.ca/articles/accountabilityinaccessibilitytesting/54
* http://www.sidar.org/hera/

...and as for accesskeys... <smile>

Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19

More reasons why we don't use accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37

Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations:
http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38

Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52

The Future of Accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66

Cheers!

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:35PM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

ANNOUNCEMENT

Welcome to our building!

We have ensured that almost all of our doors can be opened by everybody who visit us! The functionality of the doors is guaranteed by Standard Droos Spec YIZ v1.3. The doors can be opened from both sides. Please, enter strait ahead. To the people who need aid, we suggest using our new handrails (NHr 8.1) to the right - sometimes on the left - of the doors, under the sign "Handrails". In cases when the doors won't open automatically, you can open the doors by pressing the great green button "Open the doors" with your left hand (if you have one).

Thank You.
OrgCo Ltd.

*

(I'm so sorry!)

Hello Lisa,

As you might have guessed, I do not think an Accessibility Statement necessary. Few will read it, save for the information on access keys.

A normal Web site can be used by everyone by default, if the developers know the proper way to code and give higher priority to accessible information rather than design and special effects. (The latter is actually a social policy issue for the management, not the Web developer, to decide upon. Remember the doors?)

I think it should be the other way around:
Organisations who cannot produce a normal Web site should have Statement of Apology.

Also, some of these Accessibility Statements, and alike, mention disabled persons. My experience of life tells me that people with certain difficulties do not want to be reminded of that and do not want special treatment.

On the other hand,
your Accessibility Statement may be a very good way to spread awareness of proper Web site policy. Then, why not make a reference to the UDoHR? That message would get through better than referring to WAI, XHTML, CSS etc., as those abbreviations are only know mostly to Web developers. (Remember Droos Spec YIZ v1.3?)

"-Our Web site conforms to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
(no hard feelings, okay?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Snider"
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:02:15 -0300

>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Delurking to ask a question :) Enjoy the list a lot-I learn so much!
>
> I have created an accessibility statement for my site (don't look at
> the site right now, you are seeing the old version of the site still):
>
> http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm
>
> I wanted to get some feedback on it. Does it make sense? Would you add
> anything? Delete anything? I have taken the free template from dive
> into accessibility (I haven't put up the credits below yet) and
> expanded on it and changed it a bit.
>
> Oh and I know that access keys may not be the best idea, however I
> have used them for right now...So don't flog me John!! I will likely
> be changing this part in the next few months when I get some free
> time.
>
> Cheers and thanks
>
> Lisa

--

Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

From: Chris Price
Date: Fri, Jun 10 2005 3:36PM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

On 10/6/05 2:13 am, "Paul Bohman" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Lisa Snider wrote:
>> I have created an accessibility statement for my site ...
>> http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm
>> I wanted to get some feedback on it. ...
>

> it seems a little condescending to me, even though it's not meant to be.
> It calls attention to the fact that people with disabilities have
> special needs and that Web developers must put in extra effort to
> accommodate them.

Stating that your website meets the standards whereby special needs are
accommodated seems reasonable, and a brief explanation of access keys seems
appropriate but the impression I get from this this statement is that the
author is trying to impress me that he/she understands the issues and how to
build websites accordingly rather than seeking to inform.

It could be likened to explaining browser differences. I don't explain how I
went the extra mile getting this site to work in Internet Explorer or
explain how my links change colour so you can tell you've been there.

When I design a website I don't want the visitor to be aware of why the
website works like it does, I just want it to behave like they expect it to.
Who wants to know that all the images have alt tags?

As a statement I would say its unnecessary and its kind of weak technically,
e.g. colour blindness is not a technical term and 'alt' is not a tag.

--
Chris Price

Choctaw

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.choctaw.co.uk

From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Tue, Jun 14 2005 12:36AM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

I went overboard.

I apologize to list members, and Lisa, for ruin the discussion.

Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Jedenfelt"
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:18:26 +0200

>
> ANNOUNCEMENT
>
> Welcome to our building!
>
> We have ensured that almost all of our doors can be opened by
> everybody who visit us! The functionality of the doors is
> guaranteed by Standard Droos Spec YIZ v1.3. The doors can be opened
> from both sides. Please, enter strait ahead. To the people who need
> aid, we suggest using our new handrails (NHr 8.1) to the right -
> sometimes on the left - of the doors, under the sign "Handrails".
> In cases when the doors won't open automatically, you can open the
> doors by pressing the great green button "Open the doors" with your
> left hand (if you have one).
>
> Thank You.
> OrgCo Ltd.
>
> *
>
> (I'm so sorry!)
>
> Hello Lisa,
>
> As you might have guessed, I do not think an Accessibility
> Statement necessary. Few will read it, save for the information on
> access keys.
>
> A normal Web site can be used by everyone by default, if the
> developers know the proper way to code and give higher priority to
> accessible information rather than design and special effects. (The
> latter is actually a social policy issue for the management, not
> the Web developer, to decide upon. Remember the doors?)
>
> I think it should be the other way around:
> Organisations who cannot produce a normal Web site should have
> Statement of Apology.
>
> Also, some of these Accessibility Statements, and alike, mention
> disabled persons. My experience of life tells me that people with
> certain difficulties do not want to be reminded of that and do not
> want special treatment.
>
> On the other hand,
> your Accessibility Statement may be a very good way to spread
> awareness of proper Web site policy. Then, why not make a reference
> to the UDoHR? That message would get through better than referring
> to WAI, XHTML, CSS etc., as those abbreviations are only know
> mostly to Web developers. (Remember Droos Spec YIZ v1.3?)
>
> "-Our Web site conforms to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Jedenfelt
> (no hard feelings, okay?)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lisa Snider"
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:02:15 -0300
>
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Delurking to ask a question :) Enjoy the list a lot-I learn so much!
> >
> > I have created an accessibility statement for my site (don't look at
> > the site right now, you are seeing the old version of the site still):
> >
> > http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm
> >
> > I wanted to get some feedback on it. Does it make sense? Would you add
> > anything? Delete anything? I have taken the free template from dive
> > into accessibility (I haven't put up the credits below yet) and
> > expanded on it and changed it a bit.
> >
> > Oh and I know that access keys may not be the best idea, however I
> > have used them for right now...So don't flog me John!! I will likely
> > be changing this part in the next few months when I get some free
> > time.
> >
> > Cheers and thanks
> >
> > Lisa

--

Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Jun 14 2005 9:22AM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Thomas,

No need to apologize :) I have been taking some time to look through
all the great replies (thanks everyone!) and I have to sit down and
think for a while about what everyone said before I send my replies.

I wasn't bothered by your post at all. While in the end I may not
agree with your view, it made me think a lot about the issue in
general-which was good!

Cheers

Lisa

On 6/14/05, Thomas Jedenfelt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I went overboard.
>
> I apologize to list members, and Lisa, for ruin the discussion.
>

From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Wed, Jun 15 2005 12:29AM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Lisa,

That's a relief!

Thanks,
Thomas

----- Original Message -----
From: "L Snider"
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:22:55 -0300

>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> No need to apologize :) I have been taking some time to look through
> all the great replies (thanks everyone!) and I have to sit down and
> think for a while about what everyone said before I send my replies.
>
> I wasn't bothered by your post at all. While in the end I may not
> agree with your view, it made me think a lot about the issue in
> general-which was good!
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
>
> On 6/14/05, Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:
> > I went overboard.
> >
> > I apologize to list members, and Lisa, for ruin the discussion.
> >

--

Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

From: The Snider's Web
Date: Fri, Jun 24 2005 10:03AM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement-THANKS
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to thank you for the great discussion on accessibility
statements (and accesskeys-John!). Still mulling over everything, you gave
me some great ideas and thoughts, thanks again!

Lisa

At 02:02 PM 6/9/2005, you wrote:
>I have created an accessibility statement for my site (don't look at
>the site right now, you are seeing the old version of the site still):
>
>http://gaccin.pair.com/ghosty/accessibility.htm
>
>Lisa

From: The Snider's Web
Date: Fri, Jun 24 2005 11:07AM
Subject: Re: Check of an Accessibility Statement-THANKS
← Previous message | No next message