RE: Local government website accessibility

This is long - I apologize, however I have quoted the text from the previous
message in order to maintain the context of the message and response.


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

	No doubt :)
>
> 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.

	Granted there are issues that have not been fully explored within the
context of design and implementation for "all" websites.  However, to my way
of thinking, a website does NOT have to suffer in visual design, appearance
and/or content to take into consideration accessibility standards.  I'm not
familiar with 508 for the US as I am currently following the Canadian Gov't
internet guidelines but my understanding is that they are not so very
different.  From what I read from these guidelines
(http://www.canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html) many options are
available to utilize that will have fairly effective compromises if not
outright solutions.
>
> In my limited experience observing the before/after effects, many
> of these
> redesigned sites seem to have lost a quality factor.  Something
> is missing.

	I would surmise that these "redesigned sites" did not have the time put
into them that was needed for an effective presentation while considering
inclusion for disabilities.  This could have been from financial
considerations.  I've seen a number of *accessible* sites, one of which was
mentioned in Ken's email (http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/) which I found
visually pleasing and which did not lack in quality or presentation.
>
> 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?

	So, is the issue the standard.......or the person trying to implement it?!
:)  I do not believe that it is necessary to "dumb down and deskill" a
website in order to include accessibility.
>
> 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.

	I reiterate, is it the standard or is it the person trying to implement it?
Unfortunately I think that some sites have  lost the focus here - it's not
about taking things out of your site to make it accessible - it's more about
*including* things in your site to make it MORE accessible.  Yes, there are
problems with columnar text, frames, pdf's, forms etc. but there are
work-arounds for these that should not change the visual appearance of the
site including the use of <.pre> and css.  I'll freely admit I'm not an
expert on implementing accessibility guidelines but if you're a good enough
designer, can't you incorporate these aspects without losing the quality of
your site?  I think that you can.

	Accessibility is not just about screen-reading tools.  It's about
navigation, readability, thoughtful use of fonts and colours (or should I
say insightful? ;) ) voice-input systems for mobility-impaired persons and
other methods of assistive technology that allow *people* to access the
website.  It's about taking into consideration design principles that allow
the majority of people to utilize a website.

	and I quote:    "The preceding sections explain why you should consider the
needs of a widely varying population. And yet, much of the promise of the
Web lies in its emerging technologies: in its ever-increasing ability to
provide new services. Our purpose for advocating universal design is NOT to
ask designers to avoid or shy away from the latest advances in Web
technology, but simply to require the inclusion of alternate mechanisms to
support people or systems with differing abilities."


> 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.

	I can understand adding pages to a site in order to offer alternatives that
work with assistive technology and/or utilize greater accessibility aspects.
As to two complete sites - no.  It's missing the point.  You would need to
consider designing more than two different sites in order to take into
consideration other issues than just screen-readers.  As I have said,
Accessibility is not just about visual impairment which to my mind is what
the idea of a text-based "secondary" site is about.  It is about awareness.
Take into consideration the challenges presented to other viewers.  This
isn't difficult, it just requires some thought and some learning.

	In closing (my rather long-winded dissertation ;) ) I'd like to share a
small experience.  In 1997, my husband was stricken with Guillian-Barre
Syndrome (http://www.guillain-barre.com/) which resulted in paralysis of his
peripheral nervous system.  Fine motor skills were profoundly affected in
almost exactly the same way that someone is with multiple sclerosis.  Using
a keyboard for emails was rather difficult :) and we had to slow down the
"speed" response of the mouse.  If any of this had had long term aspects
then we would have had to consider assistive technology.  As it was, his
emails were slightly garbled and often funny to read. Guillian-Barre might
be rare, but diminished fine motor skills for many, many people is not.
And, for my husband, being confined to a wheelchair meant that a great deal
of his life revolved around a computer and the internet.  Including, not
surprisingly, websites that informed about GBS.  My husband and I are pretty
typical people and he is now 95% recovered.  Never forget that situations
like this can happen to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.  There is a great deal
more people out there who have so-called disabilities than you can possibly
imagine.

Shelley

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