E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: Iain Harrison
Date: Mon, Sep 20 2004 4:23AM
Subject: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
No previous message | Next message →

Monday, September 20, 2004, 11:01:44 AM, martin wrote:

> * http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/
> - UK government treasury website, meets WAI level AAA

It failed Cynthia's automatic checks even for just A standard.
The HTML is valid, though.

> * http://www.oxfam.org.uk/
> - surely needs no introduction - commended by the Disability Rights
> Commission here in the UK (http://www.drc-gb.org/)

Invalid HTML (itself a WAI failure) and it failed Cynthia WAI
validation even for A standard.

> * http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/
> - a UK government run site aimed at small businesses,

Fails both HTML validation and Cynthia WAI validation AA standard.

> built to meet RNIB's
> See It Right standard (a selection of WAI's most relevant A, AA and AAA
> checkpoints - http://www.rnib.org.uk/)

This is an interesting approach. Are we to ignore all disabled
people whose disability isn't sight impairment? The WAI already have
a hierarchy of what is most important: A, AA and AAA standards.

> * http://www.chatsworth-house.co.uk/
> - a site for a beautiful stately home in the North of England - meets
> RNIB's See It Right standard

Invalid HTML and it fails to meet WAI AA standards.


I also note that all these sites use a fixed-width design that gives
the user no control over line lengths.

In fairness, they are all to be commended for having made an effort, but
before holding them up as an example of good practice, perhaps we
should get them to reach the basic minimum standards!


--

Iain

From: Iain Harrison
Date: Mon, Sep 20 2004 9:14AM
Subject: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
← Previous message | Next message →

Monday, September 20, 2004, 3:56:56 PM, henny.swan wrote:


> For more information have a look at
> http://www.rnib.org.uk/seeitrightaudit
> or drop me a line.

Just as a matter of interest, have you done an audit on that page?

After all, it uses invalid HTML, invalid CSS and fails to meet WAI AA
validation.

Yet it appears to have your logo on it.

--

Iain

From: Henny.Swan
Date: Mon, Sep 20 2004 9:22AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Iain,

We audit to See it Right standards which are a combination of A, AA and AAA.
The reason we do this is because we have picked the WAI checkpoints that we
feel are practical and achievable. I can forward a copy on the checkpoints
if you like. As for the CSS we are about to move over to a CSS based site
shortly so watch this space.

Henny

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Sep 20 2004 11:47PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, iain wrote:

> After all, it uses invalid HTML, invalid CSS and fails to meet WAI AA
> validation.
>
> Yet it appears to have your logo on it.

But that's what accessibility logos are really for: they indicate
misguided attempts at accessibility, along with desire to show off.
And they can never be correct, since an accessibility logo, in its
esoteric nature, is itself an obstacle to users.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Iain Harrison
Date: Tue, Sep 21 2004 3:44AM
Subject: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
← Previous message | Next message →

Tuesday, September 21, 2004, 10:07:40 AM, martin wrote:

> The other example I gave http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/ has been audited by
> RNIB and is expected to receive accreditation imminently.

Well, if a page that uses invalid HTML gets accreditation, that
puts the accreditation into the "blue flag" category: a meaningless
charade.


--

Iain

From: Ineke van der Maat
Date: Tue, Sep 21 2004 4:15AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: examples of accessible sites
← Previous message | No next message

Hello iain

You wrote:
,Well, if a page that uses invalid HTML gets accreditation, that
> puts the accreditation into the "blue flag" category: a meaningless
> charade.>

Valid code is very important for operability. In the WCAG 2.0 draft
valid code has been promoted from WCAG-AA tot the WCAG 2.0 equivalent of
WCAG-A.

Invalid code means that now a site never can be WCAG-AA conform:
Priority 2 Checkpoints :
3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.

I know somebody who collects all kinds of buttons/logos/icons that he
can find in websites, indicating that the site might be usable and/or
accessible. He already has so many that he probably can make a quartett
game of it.

Greetings
Ineke van der Maat