Silicon.com reports:
An investigation into the accessibility of the internet has slammed the majority of websites for being unusable for disabled would-be web surfers.
Deaf, blind and dyslexic users are all being let down badly by the majority of website designers and online publishers, who fail to take into account their special needs, according to the report.
The bitterest irony is that the disabled, along with the elderly, have the most to gain from the internet and its virtual ability to bring products and services into the home.
Speaking at the launch of the report, Bert Massie, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, said: Eight in 10 sites are next to impossible for some disabled people to use.”
It’s a shame disabled people can’t read the report.
CNet’s News.com also ran a story today centered around the DRC report.
The DRC report summarizes the first of its findings as:
Most websites (81%) fail to satisfy the most basic Web Accessibility Initiative category. In addition, the results of the evaluations undertaken by disabled users show that they have characteristics that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for people with certain impairments, especially those who are blind, to make use of the services provided. This results both from lack of interest and knowledge on the part of website developers, and from perceived commercial obstacles to accessibility on the part of website commissioners, notwithstanding that anecdotal evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced.
1. Few (19%) websites comply even with the lowest priority Checkpoints for accessibility.
2. All categories of disabled user consider that site designs take insufficient account of their specific needs.
3. Blind users, who employ screen readers to access the web, although not alone in being disadvantaged, are particularly disadvantaged by websites whose design does not take full account of their needs.
4. Although many of those commissioning websites state that they are alert to the needs of disabled people, there is very little evidence of such awareness being translated into effective usability for disabled people.
5. Website designers have an inadequate understanding of the needs of disabled users and of how to create accessible websites, and would welcome clearer guidance.
Perhaps the DRC should follow its own advice. A quick accessibility check in Acrobat 6 Professional of the PDF version of the DRC report found that the report iself isn’t accessible to people with disabilities. In the “Easy Read Summary” PDF of the report the document is not XML structured, has no specified language, and all 17 images are missing alternative text–so the vision impaired know they’re missing some of the content, but have no idea what it is.
The full report, though it contains no images, is even worse. Again, no language is specified, 120 words are inaccessible because they contain no reliable Unicode mapping, and the document is unstructured.
The original report on Silicon.com characterizes the inability of the disabled and elderly, those whom it says have the most to gain from the internet, to use much of the internet’s services as “the bitterest irony.” While I certainly don’t seek to demean either the lack of accessible content for the disabled and blind or Silicon.com’s report, the bitterest irony is actually the fact that an agency tasked with enforcing the rights of the disabled and with producing “publications on rights and good practice for disabled people, employers and service providers” can’t even create publications accessible by disabled people.
Before the Disability Rights Commission threatens suit against too many companies and designers, perhaps it should wipe the egg off its face. Glass houses are a real pain for the vision-impaired to navigate.
Its easy to criticise sites for being inaccessible, and as you correctly point out, the DRC website should be accessible before criticising others.
You’ve made that point quite clearly, yet you also make the same mistake. There are a number of accessibility problem on this very page ranging from javascript dependancies (a Priority 1 issue), your alternative text on the DRC image, your choice of colours create problems for colour blind people – particularly deuteranopia, no specified Document Type, using deprecated HTML instead of stylesheets, using HTML structures for presentational effects, nested tables with no proper accessible markup, tag soup (you do know that inline elements cannot contain block-level elements?), not using a list structure when presenting a list, more irrelevant and discouteus alt text ([Right Quotation Mark] – almost as dire as “small red square used as a bullet point”).
Perhaps you are also suffering from the “Do as I say, not as I do”.
Now, my only concern is: are you going to do anything about fixing the accessibility problems on your own website?
Regarding the accessibility of the DRC website, have you read this article: disabled sites also fail. Clearly _everyone_ has a lot of work to do.
Level AA+
Pariah: “The difference is, I don’t make claims at accessibility of this site.”
Interesting double standard you have there. You, as a webdesigner, are part of the accessibility problem. The sooner you realise that and learn about the tools of your trade, the better for you and the community you pretend to serve.
I just stopped because I was looking at Loretta’s (misfitting.com)suggested sites and came across yours. I love the way you write. Very insightful. I will be back.
bourke dooney handbag replica
bourke dooney replica handbag
burberry replica handbag
handbag lv replica
replica handbag
kate spade replica handbag
louis vuitton handbag replica
louis vuitton replica handbag
prada replica handbag
replica
replica christian dior handbag
replica coach handbag
replica designer handbag
replica dior handbag
replica gucci handbag
replica handbag
replica handbag chanel
replica handbag wholesale
wholesale designer replica handbag
:asdf:
The difference is, I don’t make claims at accessibility of this site. With my post I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of DRC, which claims to be accessible.
This site makes no claims at accessibility.
How accessible is your site?
HAhahahaha ha ha Oh, that’s funny. Isofarro and Joe Bloggs are so quick to criticize someone else’s website while hiding their own websites and identities.
Perhaps they’re representatives of the DRC (I had alerted the DRC to this post) trying to deflect the focus from their own colossal blunder by trying to put the attention on me.
I reported news about an advocate for the disabled not being accessible to the disabled. I am not in the business of enforcing the legal rights of the disabled, unlike the DRC.
Put your money where your mouth is, boys. Post your website URLs here. Otherwise, you’re just another pair of cowards talking shit behind a computer screen.
“Brave is the coward’s tongue when wrapped in the yellow cloak of anonymity.” –Pariah Burke, 2003
Thanks, Sara! Welcome to my blog.
In an ideal world, all websites and all other services would be fully accessible to the disabled. Someday, they (at least websites) will be. For now, the technology is barely there, but it involves a trade-off: limit this one group of people, or limit this other; if you find a way to satisfy both, then a third group often suffers.
It’s a difficult balancing act that, at this point in time, isn’t easy to pull off. Unfortunately, for many sites, it’s numbers game for the time being.