FW: Estimates of Accessible Web Sites

Dear Kynn


> (1) The term "accessible" is not an absolute; a site may be accessible
> to
>      to one person with one set of abilities and not accessible to
> someone


	Exactly - accessibility covers a huge spectrum some of which is within the
viewer's control although may not be part of their knowledge.

>
> Here are my estimates:
>
> 95%+ of Web sites have minor accessibility errors which will make them
>       annoying to use for at least one identifiable user group.
>
> 75% of Web sites have moderate accessibility errors which
>      will make them difficult to use for at least one identifiable
>      user group.
>
> 50% of Web sites have serious accessibility errors which will make them
>      almost impossible to use for at least one identifiable user group.
>
> 25% of Web sites have catastrophic accessibility errors which make them
>      unusable by at least one identifiable user group.
>
> Where did I get those figures from?  I made them up, based on my
> knowledge of Web design and accessibility techniques.  I would say this
> is an improvement over 4 years ago, when the numbers would have been:
>
> 99%+    Minor accessibility errors;
> 90%     Moderate accessibility errors;
> 75%     Serious accessibility errors;
> 50%     Catastrophic accessibility errors.
>
> What do you all think?  What categories would you use and what
> percentages
> would you set?
>
> --Kynn

	I can't answer to your figures although at first glance they seem logical.
As to 4 years ago, well weren't there a lot less plug-ins then which might
reduce that catastrophic accessiblity error figure?

	Defining priorities for each design either puts accessibility at or near
the top of the list or probably at the far end of the spectrum depending on
the client/designer.  With the huge diversity and constantly evolving aspect
of coding for a website ever present, one wonders if accessibility will ever
become a standard criteria in design.  Take a walk one day and check out
physical handicap access - it also varies from great to absolutely pathetic.
(Ever try to lift a 180 lb man in a wheelchair up onto a sidewalk because
the nearest wheelchair ramp is more than a block away? - Oh, forgot to
mention I'm 5'2 and not musclebound :))

	Cost factor - height of frustration moment when the manager of a very large
dept store answers my query about lack of push button or auto open doors to
his store - it costs too much (hmm, I guess we won't be shopping there).
Money becomes part of the defining quality also, doesn't it - or more
specifically for site design, time and therefore money :)

	Perhaps an important part of an analysis of accessiblity issues is what
does it cost in lost revenues rather than "inconvenience" to a viewer :)
How does one increase awareness and therefore the drive to accommodate?  So,
do you really think we've improved that much from 4 years ago as far as
awareness is concerned or is it a matter of technology catching up on the
viewer's end to a dynamic and evolving environment?

	Just my ramblings on a lazy saturday afternoon  :)

Regards

Shelley

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