 |
 |
 |
|
06.11.09 The Truth About Technical Accessibility  By Matt BaileyThis has been stewing for a while. Just brimming under the surface. An brewing anger towards companies that do not understand accessibility, nor the commitment that is required to be accessible, but will give it a light treatment simply as a sales tactic. Basically, I've had it. I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. I've worked with too many projects where a vendor has sold a program, content management system or software application as a part of the overall project, and claimed that it was "technically compliant". "Sure it is 508 compliant," they say. Not understanding the implications of such a statement. Invariably, the application is exposed for what it really is. A basic treatment of accessibility veiled in sales gibberish. The charade lasts until it is actually placed under scrutiny of those will be needing accessibility features. When asked to produce evidence of 508 compliance or some sort of accessibility certification, there is rarely any documentation, other than a simple automated test. So, what is "technically compliant"? I would describe "Technical compliance" as a label company's use when they go through the motions of compliance, without truly understanding the reasoning and methods of accessibility. Simply running a page or an application through an automated accessibility checker is NOT an approval for the "accessible" label. Accessibility is much more than the "strict" side of the technical checklist. Accessibility is about much more than screen readers. Accessibility is about understanding the people that use a website and that making a website accessible actually makes it easier to use for everyone, not just a single, small group of people that need these features. To better understand the "technically accessible" label that people like to use, we have to examine some of the elements of the Web Accessibility Checklist developed by the W3C. These are elements that cannot be tested by automated software, only by actual human testing.
Where Automation Fails MultiMedia Checkpoint 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. This just makes sense. Search engines can't read images, video, podcasts or other multimedia. Instead they rely on tags, descriptions and transcripts. For accessibility, this also provides information to anybody; regardless of access device, technology, browser, or assistive technology. Color Contrast Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed by color is also available without color. Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. Continue reading this article. About the Author: Matt Bailey is the founder of SiteLogic, a website marketing consulting company. Matt has been in the SEO and website marketing industry since 1996, and instructing others how to do so since 1999. Matt is a regular speaker for the Search Engine Strategies Conferences, both in the US and International Shows, the Direct Marketing Association and the American Advertising Federation. |
|
| ||
 |
|
-- SysAdminNews is an iEntry, Inc. publication -- iEntry, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509 2009 iEntry, Inc. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy Legal archives | advertising info | news headlines | free newsletters | comments/feedback | submit article |
