Welcome to yet another new forum!

[sclark]

There is so much discussion these days about accessibility issues and compliance that we thought it worthwhile to devote a whole forum to the subject.

To quote from a recent article on the subject:

"Web accessibility, as a concept, means that content on the Internet can be reached and read by all audiences. The ultimate goal is to ensure that web content is universally accessible to all users. We are not just talking about the physically disabled or the visually impaired - we have to think about anyone with poor eyesight, those who wear glasses, the colour blind, people affected by reading disorders and even 'silver surfers'."

from http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/seo-web-accessibility-02.asp

So what's the concensus? Do you design your site to be accessible by all?

[pyro]

I do my best to ensure that my sites are accessible. While I'm sure that some zealots would find issues with them, overall, they should be quite accessible, due to the separation of content and presentation that CSS affords. Also, marking up documents semantically is a "must" in order to have an accessible site.

Thanks for adding this section - I think it'll be good.

[Daot Lagorille]

Ditto - not only should sites be accessible, but accessibility and standards go hand in hand.

[David Harrison]

I've just gotten into accessibility big time by trying to make Hackus accessible, WAI AAA if possible.

[fredmv]

Nice addition Scott. I personally try to follow accessibility guidelines as defined by the W3C in WCAG 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/). Something I believe many fail to realize is that if your markup is valid, it doesn't always mean it's accessibile which is why you should get into the habit of using validators such as Bobby (http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp) to ensure your site is accessible as well. Further, I believe that building accessible sites doesn't only make it easier for disabled persons to use, but for everyone else as well.

[Daniel T]

I nominate Robert Wellock as a mod for this forum. He seems to not mind helping people out with making their sites accessible.
-Dan

[David Harrison]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
I nominate Robert Wellock as a mod for this forum.He's been helping me get my site up to scratch recently, and he's a moderator of a forum devoted to accessibility so he could probably handle this.

But it all depends of two things, firstly does Scott want to moderate this forum? And secondly what if Robert doesn't want to moderate this forum?

[PeOfEo]

what exactly will be posted in this forum??? Articles about how great accessability is? Most of our accessability talk should be in the html forum shouldn't it? I am confused about how this forum works. :confused:

[pyro]

Why would the accessibility talk be in the HTML section? If users have accessibility questions, they should post here. Additionally, if we feel a user needs to pay more attention to accessibility, why not tell them that there site isn't very accessible, and that they should post in this section to get input on it?

[PeOfEo]

because users do not often come out and ask about accessibility but it comes up within threads, probably mainly in the site review ones, where we say, your site sucks, it is inaccessable.... But I figure in html because it is the markup that needs to be made accessible.

[David Harrison]

Seems to be working well so far (http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=182327).

[Robert Wellock]

I would suspect Robert Wellock is very appreciative of the kind words but he is very expensive at £500.00 per hour.

As you are aware he is a Code Mercenary and although he is a Guru in the field of Web Accessibility he cannot to coaxed into becoming a moderator at this stage.

Like a video; like a chick, like a dead man moving too quick in my way, had no plan dealing out code into the recycling-can trying hard to stay awake. So let's cruise, let's freak because it's accessibility day every day of the week…

Web Accessibility is not directly connected to one particular markup language; lets quote Tommy Olsson (http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/about/site/acknowledgments.php)
To avoid creating unnecessary impediments, for people and devices, to accessing the web site's content.

As you can see it has rather divorced from the actual markup but rather the overall experience.

[Robert Wellock]

To answer the question originally posted; I am a Guru but I have the capacity to know how to design sites, which are not considered accessible.

Albeit I can see through various sites that claim to be WCAG compliant and are not because the web author was not competent enough at understanding the Technical Recommendations or experienced at applying the appropriate solutions.

[Jona]

Awesome addition, Scott! Thanks! :)

I always design my sites to be as accessible as I possibly can, yet maintaining a very aethetically pleasing design - whether graphically intense or subtle and informational. Running my site through validators, talking to users who may struggle with inaccessible sites, and having my site reviewed here at the forums helps better my skills in web development and design. Thanks again for the forum, Scott.

[vinoth]

new section to have some disscussion over it.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by Robert Wellock
I would suspect Robert Wellock is very appreciative of the kind words but he is very expensive at £500.00 per hour

As you are aware he is a Code Mercenary and although he is a Guru in the field of Web Accessibility he cannot to coaxed into becoming a moderator at this stage.

Like a video; like a chick, like a dead man moving too quick in my way, had no plan dealing out code into the recycling-can trying hard to stay awake. So let's cruise, let's freak because it's accessibility day every day of the week… Gosh you are so weird lol. You refer to your self in third person and drop rhymes about accessability!

[Robert Wellock]

That's because he was trained to talk in third-person for writing professional Technical Papers, and why not mash a weird little rhyme if it draws attention to the subject.

The point being many people either assume the topic of web accessibility is dead serious a legally driven chore or a 'cool hip-and-trendy thing to be following' both are poor reasons to be considering the topic...

Really the Webmasters must ask themselves deep-down why are they interested in the topic; is it because it makes the look good, and clever or are they doing it because they strongly believe they have pure motivation and want to achieve greater understandings.

Some people know where their convictions lie and have not just hopped onto a rolling bandwagon. The year 2000 was when Robert made his first commercial fully WAI-AA site but that's irrelevant as you cannot truly measure the topic in relation of compliance against a list of checkpoints.

Some people fear the topic; others fear looking stupid and getting delivered ridicule by not understanding the guidelines and having to admit they are fumbling in the dark even though they think they know where they are heading.

Then again others get scared of people like myself but the latter is probably more justified since after all I am your target audience the leper, the person who is classified as being disabled.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by Robert Wellock
Then again others get scared of people like myself but the latter is probably more justified since after all I am your target audience the leper, the person who is classified as being disabled.
I believe that should be:

Then again others get scared of people like Robert but the latter is probably more justified since after all he is your target audience the leper, the person who is classified as being disabled.

;)
-Dan