WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Check of an Accessibility Statement

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Jun 10, 2005 3:30PM

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 REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053