'Most websites' failing disabled (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

Most of the leading websites around the world are failing to provide the most basic accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

Ninety seven percent of websites did not provide even minimum levels of accessibility, a new survey has found.

Accessibility agency Nomensa tested the leading websites in five different sectors across 20 countries

Only three websites, including the British Prime Minister's site, achieved the minimum standards.

The report, commissioned by the United Nations as part of its International Day of Disabled Persons, will make depressing reading for anyone committed to the idea of equal web access for all.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm

on edit: http://www.nomensa.com/resources/useful-links.html for links to for/non profit resources for accessibility

One interesting note: over-reliance on JavaScript is a big negative. I find that true even without a handicap. Turning off JS avoids all manner of problems, not the least of which is annoying animated ads.

[cdsilv]

1. My deaf daughter can use most websites.

I understand that blind people have real limitations using the web, as it is VERY visual.

I do not believe that all websites should have to put in 'audible' components - perhaps a specific browser could be developed for the blind that would 'audibilize' conventional websites?

I don't know what the solution is, but there has to be one.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. There are browsers for the blind. Most use text-to-speech converters, but ...

rely on having something to read. Pictures should have more useful labels than pic001.jpg, for example.

[ThomCat]

4. And

the formatting on most sites makes it incredibly difficult for a text to speech program to find the important text. For each page you visit you have to sit and listen to a whole lot of babble to find the one nugget of text.

Scanning for the important text is easy when you can see, but less so when you have to listen.

Look up and see how much stuff would need to be read on this page alone before you get to even the first word of relevant text.

[Ezlivin]

5. Designing accessible sites is tricky

I'm a web developer and I also happen to be disabled (T-4 complete SCI).

When I design a site for a client, they are only interested in what THEY can see or hear, not how others may see or hear the site. I spend time educating my clients, talking up standards-compliant code (which is a big step toward accessibility) and showing them how it can make a difference for them.

But getting most web developers/designers to switch to standards-compliant code is a difficult task. Many designers are wed to the use of such "old" coding practices such as using tables to put content together. Switching to a table-less design is difficult though the benefits are great. Clean XHTML code goes a long way toward accessibility, but too many designers want it to look great in Internet Explorer (which is not standards-compliant) and ignore Firefox, Navigator, Opera, Safari, Lynx and other browsers. They tend to like "gizmos" and Flash-enabled content over clean text and white space.

Sigh.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. 'tend to like "gizmos" and Flash' ... picture my surprise.

:eyes:

Oh, and IE is out of compliance ? Again, surprise.

I guess you are familiar http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ ? I haven't used it as a resource, but I like the idea behind it. And I appreciate the term "mystery meat navigation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Meat_Navigation

[Ezlivin]

19. I hate Flash

Actually, I don't hate the program itself or even some of the creative content that it has generated, but the way that it completely ruins the functionality of websites. You can go back or forward a page. You can't bookmark a page. You can't enlarge text that is too small. In short: The user has precious little control of how the content is displayed.

Statistically speaking, the most pressed button on the internet is the one that says "Skip Intro". Given the opportunity most people will skip Flash intros. And given the opportunity to disable all Flash-enabled ads most people will.

[eppur_se_muova]

21. I'm with you there. Don't even have Flash installed. nt

[951-Riverside]

3. Why are they targeting websites?

Shouldn't they also be targeting car and aircraft manufacturers?

[ThomCat]

6. Are you serious?

Should people who are visually impaired be prohibited from accessing the internet?

And what does that have to do with being able to drive a car or pilot a plane?

[mentalsolstice]

10. I hope you forgot your sarcasm thingy!

Web inaccessibility is very real, and yet very easy to overcome. Just as a sicks and bricks business has to provide ramps, etc., an online business should also provide accessibility.

Otherwise, do you have a problem with disabled persons driving, flying or accessing said vehicles? I'm not suggesting of course that a visually impaired person be licensed to drive. However, you'd be surprised at many of the other disabled people who are ridiculously denied drivers' licenses.

If you have a problem with the ADA and similar laws in other countries...I would suggest going on over to freeperland, they'll give you a big ol' warm welcome there!

[951-Riverside]

12. I have no problem with disabled people having their independence in all aspects of life

I understand that I may one day because disabled due to everyday occurrences like accidents and/or disease furthermore I have no problem with the ADA. With that said I still wonder why they are going websites and are not gong after Goliaths like the Automobile industry. It would be great if the blind could choose where and when they want to go without relying on others or public transportation.

I would suggest going on over to freeperland, they'll give you a big ol' warm welcome there!

I hope you forgot your sarcasm thingy! :eyes:

[KamaAina]

7. There are basic standards for Web accessibility

but they are honored mainly in the breach by lazy Web designers. :grr:

Just for a lark, I think I'll go and test DU now; back in a flash...

[KamaAina]

8. Egads! Our access sucks!

See for yourself at http://webxact.watchfire.com

This page does not comply with all of the automatic and manual checkpoints of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and requires repairs and manual verification.

Automatic Checkpoints Manual Checkpoints
Status Errors Instances Status Warnings Instances
Priority 1 1 3 11 229
Priority 2 4 70 18 327
Priority 3 3 204 7 7



Collapse Section|Top of PagePriority 1 Checkpoints
Errors
1 tests, 3 instances on page Expand Code Fragments
Guideline Instances Line Numbers
1.1 Provide alternative text for all images. 3 597, 598, 601

and it goes on and on from there :(

Edit: Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended to imply that the above noted access deficiencies are the fault of the DU technical team. Rather, a more plausible hypothesis is that they are due to limitations within the DCForum+ software which underlies DU.

[efhmc]

11. Can this be fixed? I would like all people to be able to come here and

get some good info and enjoy some great debates.

[KamaAina]

13. Well, that depends.

On exactly how much control Elad and Co. have over the forum software, which has already "been extensively modified by the DU administrators".

[efhmc]

14. Okay, help me here, Does that mean it is impossible or just very

difficult?

[KamaAina]

16. Nothing's ever impossible.

I'm not familiar with this type of software, so I don't know how difficult it would be.

They do, however, do an outstanding job of adding new features to DU (if you dare, go over to FR and compare), most of which would seem to be more complicated than doing things like adding alt-tags to photos. A lot of Web access, especially on a huge site like DU, is sheer drudgery. If only Web authoring software flagged access stuff while the page was being built... :shrug:

[Ezlivin]

20. Not impossible - true, but expensive

I've extensively modified software to meet a client's expectations. But if they wanted me to make it W3C compliant, I'd basically have to re-write the code. If you've ever looked into the files that comprise a turn-key package you'll discover that frightfully few developers separate content from presentation. This means that the HTML needed to display the page is often woven into the PHP/ASP code. Instead of using external style sheets to determine the presentation, they will use inline styles (shudder) or simply hardcode presentation aspects directly into the HTML. Someone tasked with bringing this code into the 21st century will face a daunting project. Couple this with the fragmentation created by using tables for design and it will merely seem impossible. (Trust me; after looking at thousands of lines of code, converting "<br>" to "<br />", quoting attributes, setting the proper case and removing deprecated items, you grow weary.)

Someone could write a fully standards-compliant and accessible bulletin board, but they'd have to do it from scratch. And they'd have to drop support for older browsers (particularly IE 5.5 and lower and Netscape Navigator 4.x and lower).

[bobbolink]

17. Mahalo for checking. Did you pass on the results?

I hope the admins are able/willing to do something with this.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention! :hi:

[KamaAina]

18. The beginning of them is in post #8 upthread

along with the link used to get them. Sadly, the whole page would have been far too long to post.

[demnan]

15. I used to work on Government websites and now Private Industry

During the Clinton years they passed a law that every government website had to be compliant to Bobby standards. Bobby is a program that checks for things like tab order, content tags, etc. But as someone here already said, using a speech browser entails vocalizing things like <table><tr><td><I><strong> etc. We attempted with good faith to make all our FAA websites Bobby-compliant but this issue remained.

I took a seminar in Cold Fusion with a guru named Sandy Clark, she is an authority on this issue. There is a way to actually build your architecture using the XML file that can make compliance a lot easier.

When Bush came into office, this was not a big priority anymore for government websites.

We really need to address this issue.