Comments on: Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Internet Buzz Words - JP2 Designs - Web and Print Development - Perth, Western Australia http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-29606 Internet Buzz Words - JP2 Designs - Web and Print Development - Perth, Western Australia Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:37:58 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-29606 [...] AAA Web Accessibility Rating: Yes you can get different so called levels of accessibility for a website. The way I see it is that the website either meets the standard or it does not. Hear is two links for information on Web Accessibility Rating (One by Steel Technology and one written by webstandards.org). [...] [...] AAA Web Accessibility Rating: Yes you can get different so called levels of accessibility for a website. The way I see it is that the website either meets the standard or it does not. Hear is two links for information on Web Accessibility Rating (One by Steel Technology and one written by webstandards.org). [...]

]]> By: » Internet Buzz Words » GermWorks - Web & Multimedia http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-28619 » Internet Buzz Words » GermWorks - Web & Multimedia Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:19:47 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-28619 [...] AAA Web Accessibility Rating: Yes you can get different so called levels of accessibility for a website. The way I see it is that the website either meets the standard or it does not. Hear is two links for information on Web Accessibility Rating (One by Steel Technology and one written by webstandards.org). [...] [...] AAA Web Accessibility Rating: Yes you can get different so called levels of accessibility for a website. The way I see it is that the website either meets the standard or it does not. Hear is two links for information on Web Accessibility Rating (One by Steel Technology and one written by webstandards.org). [...]

]]> By: Kary Lawson’s Blog » Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-4396 Kary Lawson’s Blog » Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:16:55 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-4396 [...] By Ian Lloyd [...] [...] By Ian Lloyd [...]

]]> By: Ashley Bowers Blog » Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-2943 Ashley Bowers Blog » Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:51:37 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-2943 [...] Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims Or how not to waste tax-payers’ money on inaccessible sites or make grand claims on accessibility that you cannot fully back up. [...] [...] Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims Or how not to waste tax-payers’ money on inaccessible sites or make grand claims on accessibility that you cannot fully back up. [...]

]]> By: Ashley Bowers Blog http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-2942 Ashley Bowers Blog Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:50:15 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-2942 <strong>Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims...</strong> Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims Or how not to waste tax-payers’ money on inaccessible sites or make grand claims on accessibility that you cannot fully back up. By Ian Lloyd This has an interesting list of ten things to do and a piece on tru... Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims…

Crying Foul on Accessibility Claims
Or how not to waste tax-payers’ money on inaccessible sites or make grand claims on accessibility that you cannot fully back up.
By Ian Lloyd
This has an interesting list of ten things to do and a piece on tru…

]]> By: Tim http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-2252 Tim Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:27:44 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-2252 You guys have problems, but Australia is in the dark ages, the peak body in Australia the Australian Government Information Office AGIMO made awards for excellence to these broken websites. http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready My review of some UK governmenet sites: http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html Keep up the good work Tim http://www.hereticpress.com You guys have problems, but Australia is in the dark ages, the peak body in Australia the Australian Government Information Office AGIMO made awards for excellence to these broken websites.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready

My review of some UK governmenet sites:

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html

Keep up the good work

Tim
http://www.hereticpress.com

]]> By: Paul Walsh http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-1947 Paul Walsh Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:10:13 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-1947 In view of the comments and opinions expressed here, I would like to state for the record that Segala is not connected or involved with www.sonyericsson.com or any of its sub-sites, this includes the DaVinci Code section of this site. Segala has not audited or certified this website for accessibility and has made no claims to that effect. Segala was not responsible for the design or build of the www.davincicodetrail.co.uk website, nor indeed the decision to provide one version in Flash and an alternative HTML version. The Segala certificate clearly states which URLs it has certified. The decision to create the http://www.davincicodetrail.co.uk/ website and the hosting of the Flash game on a separate URL was in no way influenced by and beyond any control of Segala. Our press release states that we certified http://www.davincicodetrail.co.uk/. We would like to point out that it does not allude to or suggest that we certified the flash game or any other elements on www.sonyericsson.com, however we do acknowledge that the wording may have caused some confusion as to whether or not we certified the flash game on which the O2 website is centered around. For this we apologise and we thank you for pointing this out to us. We sincerely did not intend for this Press release to be “misleading propaganda” and we have taken the decision to amend our press release to clarify the issues raised. Unfortunately, the flash site/elements were already built before Segala was engaged to audit and certify the accessible alternative. I must point out that with the exception of the game (which is now clearly marked as inaccessible to some) the HTML alternative provides exactly the same information as the flash site. So, although I agree it is best practice to create one site that is accessible to all, in this instance the best alternative was to create an accessible HTML version of the site. We could have been less enthusiastic in issuing the PR for this particular site, but we are keen to help move the industry forward from what it currently perceives as ‘accessibility extremism’ by demonstrating how some companies embrace accessibility for the long haul and are embedding it into their strategies, brand marketing and development guidelines. However, even those companies that take their responsibilities seriously sometimes have difficulty in releasing fully (what is that anyway!) accessible sites all of the time – BUT let’s not shoot them right away or we’ll turn them away from accessibility altogether. In an ideal world, every new site developed would be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, but in reality it’s important to realise that this may not happen for some time. So, whilst I think it’s valuable to highlight the failures of some, I also think we need to recognise and support the efforts of others. If you would like to know more about my own personal philosophy and belief that underpins Segala’s long-term vision of where the industry should be heading, please take a look at my post on E-consultancy. I would welcome anybody to get in touch with Segala (or me) directly if they have any further comments or concerns. Paul Walsh, CEO, Segala Link: http://www.e-consultancy.com/forum/103761-accessibility-we-can-t-get-it-right-on-the-high-street-what-hope-do-we-have-on-the-web.html?keywords=segala In view of the comments and opinions expressed here, I would like to state for the record that Segala is not connected or involved with http://www.sonyericsson.com or any of its sub-sites, this includes the DaVinci Code section of this site. Segala has not audited or certified this website for accessibility and has made no claims to that effect.

Segala was not responsible for the design or build of the http://www.davincicodetrail.co.uk website, nor indeed the decision to provide one version in Flash and an alternative HTML version. The Segala certificate clearly states which URLs it has certified.

The decision to create the http://www.davincicodetrail.co.uk/ website and the hosting of the Flash game on a separate URL was in no way influenced by and beyond any control of Segala.

Our press release states that we certified http://www.davincicodetrail.co.uk/. We would like to point out that it does not allude to or suggest that we certified the flash game or any other elements on http://www.sonyericsson.com, however we do acknowledge that the wording may have caused some confusion as to whether or not we certified the flash game on which the O2 website is centered around. For this we apologise and we thank you for pointing this out to us. We sincerely did not intend for this Press release to be “misleading propaganda” and we have taken the decision to amend our press release to clarify the issues raised.

Unfortunately, the flash site/elements were already built before Segala was engaged to audit and certify the accessible alternative. I must point out that with the exception of the game (which is now clearly marked as inaccessible to some) the HTML alternative provides exactly the same information as the flash site. So, although I agree it is best practice to create one site that is accessible to all, in this instance the best alternative was to create an accessible HTML version of the site.

We could have been less enthusiastic in issuing the PR for this particular site, but we are keen to help move the industry forward from what it currently perceives as ‘accessibility extremism’ by demonstrating how some companies embrace accessibility for the long haul and are embedding it into their strategies, brand marketing and development guidelines. However, even those companies that take their responsibilities seriously sometimes have difficulty in releasing fully (what is that anyway!) accessible sites all of the time – BUT let’s not shoot them right away or we’ll turn them away from accessibility altogether.

In an ideal world, every new site developed would be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, but in reality it’s important to realise that this may not happen for some time. So, whilst I think it’s valuable to highlight the failures of some, I also think we need to recognise and support the efforts of others.

If you would like to know more about my own personal philosophy and belief that underpins Segala’s long-term vision of where the industry should be heading, please take a look at my post on E-consultancy.

I would welcome anybody to get in touch with Segala (or me) directly if they have any further comments or concerns.

Paul Walsh, CEO, Segala

Link: http://www.e-consultancy.com/forum/103761-accessibility-we-can-t-get-it-right-on-the-high-street-what-hope-do-we-have-on-the-web.html?keywords=segala

]]> By: chickenskinners.com » Blog Archive » DTI website http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-1945 chickenskinners.com » Blog Archive » DTI website Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:25:01 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-1945 [...] Again this is something I saw on the WaSP site. [...] [...] Again this is something I saw on the WaSP site. [...]

]]> By: nortypig http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-1930 nortypig Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:54:09 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-1930 I'm also concerned that from a managerial standpoint the only thing the powers in these companies may actually know about accessiblility comes across their desk in a memo. They rely on a technical department to advise and serve them and often you might find these people not only lacking but unwilling to admit there is something in the world of web development they may not be the best in the world at doing. So web guys / girls say its AAA and manager signs piece of paper and sends off to PR guys / girls and the show begins. Either that or I've had the exact same experiences with a number of agencies and a major CMS developer who are just bold faced liars. I'm not sure which is scarier. I’m also concerned that from a managerial standpoint the only thing the powers in these companies may actually know about accessiblility comes across their desk in a memo. They rely on a technical department to advise and serve them and often you might find these people not only lacking but unwilling to admit there is something in the world of web development they may not be the best in the world at doing.

So web guys / girls say its AAA and manager signs piece of paper and sends off to PR guys / girls and the show begins.

Either that or I’ve had the exact same experiences with a number of agencies and a major CMS developer who are just bold faced liars. I’m not sure which is scarier.

]]> By: Sophie Dennis http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-1918 Sophie Dennis Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:38:21 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/06/27/spurious-accessibility-claims-and-designs/#comment-1918 Doing a little digging I noticed that neither of the main design/build agencies used - Fresh01 and Fujitsu - are on the new official Central Office of Information (<abbr>COI</abbr>) <a href="http://www.coi.gov.uk/aboutcoi.php?page=80" title="COI Digital Media Roster" rel="nofollow">digital media roster</a>. (The COI is the official UK Government department which "provides advice, procurement and project management on every aspect of communications" to other govenment departments. The roster is essentially a list of pre-approved suppliers for government communications projects). Leaving aside the issues with how the hoop-jumping required to get on the roster effectively excludes smaller agencies, the <abbr title="Department of Trade and Industry">DTI</abbr> fiasco is surely exactly the kind of thing the COI and their roster exist to prevent? So I'd suggest a couple of other interesting questions to add to Bruce and Dan's list: 1) Did the DTI use the services of the COI when commissioning the website? and one for the COI: 2) Were agencies' capabilities in producing digital media which complies with the <abbr title="Disability Discrimination Act">DDA</abbr> and <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr> standards a criteria used when compiling the roster, and if so, how were the agencies' capabilities in these areas assessed? Doing a little digging I noticed that neither of the main design/build agencies used – Fresh01 and Fujitsu – are on the new official Central Office of Information (COI) digital media roster. (The COI is the official UK Government department which “provides advice, procurement and project management on every aspect of communications” to other govenment departments. The roster is essentially a list of pre-approved suppliers for government communications projects). Leaving aside the issues with how the hoop-jumping required to get on the roster effectively excludes smaller agencies, the DTI fiasco is surely exactly the kind of thing the COI and their roster exist to prevent?

So I’d suggest a couple of other interesting questions to add to Bruce and Dan’s list:

1) Did the DTI use the services of the COI when commissioning the website?

and one for the COI:

2) Were agencies’ capabilities in producing digital media which complies with the DDA and W3C standards a criteria used when compiling the roster, and if so, how were the agencies’ capabilities in these areas assessed?

]]>