RE: Local government website accessibility

Now we appear to be approaching an issue which has yet to have a lengthy 
debate ...

Does a web site suffer in visual design, appearance and/or content if it 
must adhere to an established accessibility standard?  Must a web site 
suffer in visual design, appearance and/or content if it must adhere to an 
established accessibility standard?  I have yet to come up with suitable 
answers to my own questions.  For me, the jury is still out and debate is 
seriously needed among web designers and developers.

In my limited experience observing the before/after effects, many of these 
redesigned sites seem to have lost a quality factor.  Something is missing.

Ok, I'll be blunt.   Not knowing whether the redesign was done with 
considerable thought and expertise needs to be addressed.  This is a 
sticking point.  Nevertheless, I find the after effects are sites which are 
dumbed down and deskilled, and most seem to lose their uniqueness, 
perceived quality and a general blah feeling.  In short, a site is reduced 
from an intriguing, thoughtful blend of design, content and appeal to a 
plain brown wrapper.  While this may not be the intent of the standard, the 
implementation of that standard appears to have a much greater effect than 
possibly first thought.  In the process of accommodating everyone, does the 
standard actually drive away majority users who do not need the standard?

Am I being harsh? Yes, of course.  Am I being fair? You tell me.   Don't 
get me wrong by this post. I am all in favor of accessibility standards and 
building sites to such standards.   Are web designers taking the "easy" way 
out with accessibility design?  In some cases it looks that way.  And in 
some ways, who can blame them.  After considerable work going into a design 
and implementation (without even addressing accessibility), it appears many 
developers rebuild a site according to the standard, and little else.  The 
site meets the standard alright, but it is a far cry from what it once 
was.  It's unprofessional on its face.  Yet this appears to be occurring.

While two sites may at first appear to equate with twice the work, this 
need not be the case.  A well designed site, preferably database driven, 
may accomplish the desired result.  The standards allow for this.

Hmmmmm.

Thoughts?


Kukla


At 03:53 PM 3/13/02 -0700, Michael Sauers wrote:
> > There are some in my
> > organization who would like to maintain a separate "text-only" site,
> > especially since the site was redesigned less than a year ago. I feel
> > that we should instead redesign our site to make it accessible to all,
> > and then only maintain the one site. I'm concerned it will be an uphill
> > battle to convince the powers-that-be that we should not have a separate
> > text-only site. Does anyone have any advice for arguing this issue?
>
>I don't mean to over-simplify the issue but what about "two sites = twice
>the work."


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free (at)yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

HWG: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA