International perspective

Andrew,

I see by your address you are joining us from the UK...

What is the status over there?  I know the UK governemnt is on a big "Best
and Brightest" push, and from what I've read they actually appear to be
pretty forward thinking.  How does accessibility play over there?  Are there
mandates or guidleline for governmental sites?  What about private
industry... how aware are they (no pun intended) of the issues?  What about
the development community in general?  How do they react (seriously
interested or rolling of eyes?)

Anybody out there from other locales?  Australia? (when you wake up... I
appreciate there's a time difference) Other EU countries?  South America?
Come on... speak up

(I'll drag this list alive if it kills me...)

JF



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aware-techniques(at)hwg.org
[mailto:owner-aware-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Andrew McFarland
Sent: January 23, 2002 4:30 PM
To: aware-techniques(at)hwg.org
Subject: Re: Hello?


At 12:52 23/01/02 -0800, Lauren Hanka wrote:
>Please tell us just why we should care! Hearing? Most Web sites are
>quite --why would *that* matter?

There are several sites out there that have audio content. It would be a
mistake to think that the audio content is accessible to everyone who can
hear. People with insufficient bandwidth, people without a soundcard, or
people working in noisy environments would all be unable to access it.

>Cognitive/motor? What problems

I am not an expert in cognitive problems, but I have seen people with
difficulty using the mouse. Generally, you should make sure all your pages
can be easily used without a mouse, allowing navigation by keyboard and
similar technologies.

>  and how do
>we adjust? --is it practical? --would it *really* create a benefit?

Ultimately, it widens the audience of your website. It also sends an
important message to your customers "We are an inclusive company. We aren't
racist or sexist and we don't tell the disabled to get lost".

>If a
>site is made to be easily usable for the widest possible audience, does
that
>mean making a site *less* than what it could be for the *broad* majority of
>users?

No. Making a site accessible generally means two things: use HTML to
structure the data the way it is supposed to be used, and make sure you add
features like accesskey where relevant. (The broad majority isn't that
broad, BTW.)

>Should the broad majority have bland sites because of the
>difficulties of a few?

Accessible does not mean bland, as I am sure others will tell you. But
there is an important point which shouldn't be overlooked. The vast
majority of visitors to your website are not coming there to look at it.
They are coming there to accomplish a specific task. Almost invariably a
simple interface will have high usability and high accessibility at the
same time.

>What is the percentage of users who require specially
>designed sites compared to those that do not?

Every user needs a site specially designed. Every user is using a slightly
different setup. Accessible designs are fluid and adapt.

>*Why* does such designing make smart business sense? What is the percentage
>of people who *will or do* use the Web compared to the percentage of people
>with disabilities? --because it is not the same figure.

I need glasses. Even with my glasses some badly designed websites make it
very difficult for me to use them. From the point of view of accessibility,
I would count as disabled. I imagine most glasses wearers will be in the
same position. Lots of people wear glasses.

Accessibility is NOT about designing sites for blind people, or deaf
people. It is about designing websites for people. Those people can be in
different circumstances, but accessible design fixes itself to suit them.

Andrew

--
http://aamcf.co.uk/

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