Comments on: All aboard the PAS 78 gravy train

By: Accessify: latest news / All aboard the PAS 78 gravy train

Accessify: latest news / All aboard the PAS 78 gravy train — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:24:18 +0000

[...] Cross-posted over on the WaSP. Please comment there. [...]

By: Helen Price

Helen Price — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:58:29 +0000

False marketing isn’t a crime less it’s regulated by law….

By: plauke

plauke — Sat, 27 May 2006 20:01:45 +0000

Martin McKay, Technical Director and one of the founders of Texthelp, has since responded to this post. http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/27/browsealoud-respond/

By: BrowseAloud respond - The Web Standards Project

BrowseAloud respond - The Web Standards Project — Sat, 27 May 2006 19:59:12 +0000

[...] Many thanks to Martin McKay, Technical Director and one of the founders of Texthelp (developers of BrowseAloud), for responding to my previous post All aboard the PAS 78 gravy train. [...]

By: Gareth

Gareth — Wed, 17 May 2006 11:09:23 +0000

Agreed. I’m still interested in what penetration the PAS 78 doc is achieving? Anyone who how many they have got out there, ideally not including all of us buying a copy :-)

By: bruce

bruce — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:01 +0000

Interesting perspective on browswealoud from Alistair Campbell, an accessibility consultant chappie.

By: Andy Mabbett

Andy Mabbett — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:00:20 +0000

No doubt Julie Howell or one of her colleagues will be writing them a polite but strongly worded letter, advising them to remove that claim from their website.

By: Jon Gibbins (dotjay)

Jon Gibbins (dotjay) — Fri, 12 May 2006 11:50:22 +0000

To echo the other comments, great write-up, Patrick. It’s quite depressing that this kind of thing is happening again, this time with PAS 78, but I guess it was to be expected to some extent.

Such misrepresentation could be down to misunderstanding the document – but as you point out, Pat, where is this specific recommendation of their products? It’s one thing to claim compliancy with something that isn’t a standard, but to falsely claim a recommendation, as appears to be the case here, is blatant, dodgy marketing. Alas, perhaps not blatant to the general public.

In my mind, though, such misrepresentation serves to oust companies of questionable practice/intent from the industry by its peers. The question is whether that is more damaging to such companies than the benefit of questionable practices.

By: Patrick H. Lauke

Patrick H. Lauke — Fri, 12 May 2006 11:06:44 +0000

“I do find myself wondering what the response from BSI or the DRC might be if they became aware of PAS 78 being used in this manner.”

I actually copied in the DRC’s press contact on my first email to BrowseAloud on this, but got zero response from them as well…

By: Mel Pedley

Mel Pedley — Fri, 12 May 2006 10:31:28 +0000

I do find myself wondering what the response from BSI or the DRC might be if they became aware of PAS 78 being used in this manner. The document was certainly not meant to be used as a list of recommended suppliers, or solutions, and, as I understand it, great pains were taken to try and avoid references that might imply an endorsement. However, there will always be those who may try to misrepresent even the most neutral of documents for their own promotional ends in the hopes of impressing Joe Public who, although he may have heard of PAS 78, almost certainly won't have actually read it. The end result could be described as the "Chinese Whispers" marketing approach. If direct pressure doesn't have any effect, the only other response may be to reiterate what PAS 78 is and what it isn't and draw attention to specific possible misrespresentations - accidental or otherwise. Which, of course, is exactly what this article does. Nice one!