E-mail List Archives

Re: Legacy content recommendation

for

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Aug 26, 2014 12:28PM


There are some examples I've seen over the years.
I agree with Jared: put the time and money into your current content.

I remember that Microsoft had their older content labeled "archive" in the
top banner area, which had several benefits including telling everyone that
the information could be out of date, plus signaling that it might not be
fully accessible.

Depending upon the system used to create the soon-to-be-legacy website, it
might be possible to drop its content into a new page template that is
accessible. At least the navigation would be accessible. But again, that
depends on what you have now.

—Bevi Chagnon
— PubCom.com — Trainers, Consultants, Designers, and Developers.
— Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Lucy Greco
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:15 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation

hello:
my first instinct is to not put it on the site if you can't make it
accessible. and see how many requests they get for it.
there is also a part of me that says getting a certification when you have a
lot of inaccessible content just seems like a marketing move what stops them
from getting the certification and then adding content after that is
inaccessible again. the real way to commit to access is do it, not certify
it. Lucy


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jordan Wilson <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is
> starting a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve 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 outdated such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff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 they¹re unable
> to commit to doing so financially at this point.
>
> For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t 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.
> They¹re 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
>
>
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>



--
Lucia Greco
Web Accessibility Evangelist
IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration University of California,
Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
Follow me on twitter @accessaces
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>