E-mail List Archives

Re: Legacy content recommendation

for

From: Jordan Wilson
Date: Aug 26, 2014 1:28PM


Thanks all, very helpful

On 8/26/14, 2:56 PM, "Angela French" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

>Excellent!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of John E Brandt
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:20 AM
>To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
>
>My advice has been/would be to plan forward and ensure all current and
>future content is accessible. I would then have them put notations around
>the site that if someone is having an issue accessing legacy content they
>should contact a specific office who will retrofit that content and send
>it directly to the person requesting or post for download.
>
>The client could use language that the Library of Congress uses. We know
>that they have tons of legacy content that is not accessible.
>http://www.loc.gov/accessibility/web-site-accessibility/
>
>~j
>
>John E. Brandt
>jebswebs: accessible and universal web design, development and
>consultation <EMAIL REMOVED>
>207-622-7937
>Augusta, Maine, USA
>
>@jebswebs
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:57 PM
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
>
>Our agency has a web client we©öre currently working with who is starting
>a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they©öve chosen to build to
>WCAG
>2.0 A and AA.
>
>This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
>existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated
>such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
>The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML
>etc and goes back 7+ years.
>
>Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part
>of the new accessible site.
>
>While they have committed to making their new site and current content
>accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
>financial burden for limited utility and they©öre unable to commit to
>doing so financially at this point.
>
>For the sake of brevity, let©ös assume that they can©öt make that legacy
>content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
>practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
>The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by
>a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to
>accessibility.
>They©öre undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
>make their web presence accessible.
>
>My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
>accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
>experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
>leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
>One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
>allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
>asset as necessary.
>
>Thanks for your help/insight,
>
>Jordan Wilson
>
>
>>>messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
>>>messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>>