Summary
Kevin Leitch explains why he feels that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines have failed in their mission to ensure that web content is accessible to all.
Author: Kevin Leitch
Contents
- Introduction
- Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
- Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
- One size fits all
- Make or Break
Introduction
Accessibility has become big news in the web design community. After the wasted years of the dotcom boom and bust scenario played themselves out, finally designers such as myself began to understand that good design was about more than prettiness; it had to be able to be accessed by as many people as possible.
Over the last two years I've learnt about and taken on board lots of techniques and skills for marking up websites accessibly and hopefully more people have been able to access the websites I've built as a result. I've also noticed a groundswell amongst my contemporaries, driven by websites like Juicy Studio, Accessify, ALA, dive into accessibility, etc, and by people like Joe Clark to make websites that are validly coded and accessible to at least 'A' conformance standards.
The W3C of course were the original driving force behind this groundswell, launching both WCAG and WAI, and more recently launching proposed drafts for WCAG 2.0 - an improved, more pertinent set of standards for both designers and software manufacturers to follow.
However, it's become my firm belief that accessibility is little more than a myth. Why? Because the WCAG are designed to cater almost exclusively for those with a physical disability such as a visual impairment. Those web users with learning or perceptual disability are just as excluded as before. Indeed, I would argue that making a site 'accessible' by the terms outlined by WCAG 1.0 would actually increase the level of inaccessibility to a visitor with a learning or perceptual disability.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Before I go into the more contentious elements of what I believe and have stated above, lets look at some figures. As I live and work in the UK, all my figures will be drawn from secondary data relating to UK statistics.
According to statistics provided by the DDA, the breakdown of people with a disability who would fall under the act is as follows (broken down by type of disability):
| Type of Disability | Number of People (millions) |
|---|---|
| Lifting and carrying | 7m |
| Mobility | 6m |
| Physical co-ordination | 5.6m |
| Learning and understanding | 3.9m |
| Seeing and hearing | 2.5m |
| Manual dexterity | 2.3m |
| Continence | 1.6m |
| Total | 29.6m |
From these statistics I feel we can safely remove 'lifting and carrying' and 'continence'; neither of which would add to the difficulties of using a website. Doing this leaves us with:
| Type of Disability | Number of People (millions) |
|---|---|
| Mobility | 6m |
| Physical co-ordination | 5.6m |
| Learning and understanding | 3.9m |
| Seeing and hearing | 2.5m |
| Manual dexterity | 2.3m |
| Total | 20.3m |
As we can then see, there are two main groupings; physical and learning based disabilities. In our adjusted group, those with a learning disability equal 19.22% of the overall total of people in the UK who fall under the jurisdiction of the DDA and who we would also expect to be adversely affected by inaccessible websites. If a strong enough argument could be made for including the two sub-groups of people I removed from the equation then this percentage would be a little over 13%. Whichever way one looks at it, it's a high percentage. A much higher percentage for example than say, people who use Mozilla or Opera (see links below), yet strenuous efforts are made by standards aware designers not to exclude these users.
- TheCounter.com's Browser Statistics
- OneStat.com's Browser Statistics
- W3C Schools's Browser Statistics
Accessibility gurus have little or nothing to say on the matter. Accessify.com returns two related news items when searched using the phrase 'learning difficulties'. AccessibleNet.org has 4 relevant results, one news story from the BBC, one editorial from Microsoft, one link to a symbol based web browser and a news link to a press release from Apple Mac. The much-vaunted WAI doesn't mention any disability by name but has a weak nod to political correctness with guideline 14, "ensure that documents are clear and simple so they may be more easily understood". In his 395 page book 'Building Accessible Websites', author Joe Clark devotes approximately 2 pages to the matter of learning difficulties and how websites can be made more accessible for people with this range of disabilities. Most of the two pages are taken up with how the W3C have got it wrong so far. No real appreciation of the issues is demonstrated and certainly no solutions are offered.
So what are the real options? They don't have a lot to do with your work as a designer or developer.....there is no plan of action available to you in order to accommodate learning-disabled visitors in the way that plans are available for other disability groups...there are no simple coding or programming practices- or even complex practices for that matter- in which you can engage to accommodate this group.
Joe Clark, Building Accessible Websites p35. New Riders 2003.
Mr Clark then goes on to let everyone off the hook with a laughably duplicitous piece of thinking from an accessibility expert; he throws inclusivity out the window:
We are left with the knowledge that our sites are inaccessible to a known group with next to nothing we can do about it. However anti-ethical that may seem at first blush, in fact it responds to the real world. Recall that antidiscrimination legislation includes exemption for undue hardship or burden.
Joe Clark, Building Accessible Websites p35. New Riders 2003.
So that's all right then! According to Joe Clark we don't need to worry about 19% of the disabled population, as 'there's nothing we can do' and its OK that nothing is done because that's what happens in the offline world anyway. This is in direct contrast to Tim Berners Lee, Director of the W3C and inventor of the World Wide Web who said:
The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.
Tim Berners-Lee http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Notice the failure to specify only certain types of disability.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
So it becomes clearer that Tim Berners Lee is either lying or wrong according to the current state of the accessibility movement. 19% of disabled users are not even slightly represented in WCAG 1.0 or the proposed draft of WCAG 2.0 at the time of writing, and the accessibility community don't really care anyway. Could it be that the accessibility community (flushed with pride at their corner of the design community becoming fashionable) have simply latched on to the idea of web accessibility without either thinking it through or taking Tim Berners Lee at his word? And have designers keen to be associated with something laudable after the years of dotcom boom and bust stigma also latched on to a movement that pays simple lip service to Berners Lee's ideas?
It certainly seems that the idea that because it's difficult, we shouldn't bother has taken root, thanks to contributions from people like Joe Clark. It's very difficult to find anything from self styled accessibility gurus touching on making sites accessible to those with learning difficulties.
One size fits all
The problem undoubtedly stems from the fact that the W3C have a single 'catch all' policy regarding web accessibility. Let's consider the very first checkpoint from WCAG 1.0 as an example:
Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content.
This guideline sounds very laudable, but it is weighted to benefit those with a sensory disability. Lets say that the 'visual content' was a concept (like an icon such as an envelope representing an email link) included to make it clear to those whose disability was perceptual based. The addition of 'equivalents' could very easily lead to confusion and the destruction of the concept behind the icon.
Or how about this:
Guideline 11. Use W3C technologies and guidelines.....Many non-W3C formats (e.g., PDF, Shockwave, etc.) require viewing with either plug-ins or stand-alone applications. Often, these formats cannot be viewed or navigated with standard user agents (including assistive technologies).
Again, this discriminates against those with a perceptual or learning based disability. In some cases, Flash would be an ideal delivery method and yet we are left in no doubt that WCAG 1.0 disapproves of such things. A clear case of some people apparently being created more equally than others.
Surely, a more realistic solution would be to have more than one set of guidelines and testing criteria. If a site or page is specifically set up to cater for people with a learning difficulty then guidelines appropriate to their needs should be drawn up. Why try and shoehorn the people into the criteria? Obviously, the ideal solution would be where a CSS file could be used to specify exactly which content is right for which user in much the way it can now for web, print and Braille. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to point to Flash content using style sheets?
As well as the adoption of a credible set of W3C standards, web designers could also do worse than go to websites where those with a learning disability are represented. Mencap offers a free PDF containing tips on making your website accessible to those with a learning difficulty, and has a web accessibility section on their site. As does learningdifficulties.org.uk.
Make or Break
...Julie Howell of RNIB comments,
An accessible website is one that can be visited by anybody. It is perfectly possible to produce an attractive, dynamic design that remains fully accessible.
Unless of course, your visitor has a learning/perceptual disability.
We face a stark choice. Either we can agree with Tim Berners Lee's vision for the inclusivity of the web or we can accept the weak justifications of so called experts and not bother. If we take the second choice then make no mistakes, we cannot make claims any longer to our sites being accessible or inclusive. At best we could claim that we catered for those with a physical disability. In fact, that's all WCAG 1.0 and the draft for WCAG 2.0 can reasonably claim right now. The bold idealistic statement from Berners Lee on the WAI home page is at present misleading in the extreme. We cannot carry on making bold claims for accessibility when our websites are not, even if our websites pass AAA conformance with flying colours, they are not even close to being truly accessible if 19% of the population can't participate. In the current circumstances, accessibility is just another myth.
So what should we as designers do? The easy thing, or the right thing?
Category: Accessibility.
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment1]
Firstly, thank you for contributing this article, Kev. There's a lot I don't agree with, but I think you have a valid point that a lot of well-intentioned developers and designers assume the focus of accessibility is for the visually impaired. This probably explains why guideline 11.4, "If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page" is often interpreted as a text-only page.
I do believe in a one-size fits all scenario.
In this example, all that's required is the icon contains an
altattribute explaining what it is. The use of graphics to provide visual clues is advocated by WCAG.The use of Flash isn't considered bad, providing any important information is also conveyed using an equivalent W3C technology. The reason the W3C have an issue with proprietary software at all is that the companies aren't accountable to anyone except themselves, and their motives are obviously business orientated. An open standards organisation, where interested parties have an input to ensure that basic usability issues such as graceful degradation are included, is a solid foundation for any standards organisation.
Personally, I think it's dangerous when developers start to pay too much attention to a particular disability. A basic understanding of mobility, cognitive, sight, and other impairments is obviously ideal to help developers/designers understand why there is a requirement to ensure that documents can be accessed by anyone, regardless of their abilities. I've seen a few discussions where people have investigated certain disabilities further, and then start to make decisions based on their findings for their visitors. As honourable as their intentions may be, they invariably get it wrong and inadvertently make the site even less accessible for some of their visitors. The reason we're in the position that the focus of accessibility relates to visual impairments is because it's an issue most people can relate to, and tends to be the focus of accessibility discussions. Personally, I like the idea of ensuring content is machine readable first, then accessible to humans second. Jim Byrne has an excellent explanation of this concept on the Making Connections Unit website, What is an Accessible Website.
By ensuring content is machine readable, we're providing an opportunity for more applications to manipulate that content. For example, translation programs will be able to translate the content into different languages. Communicate: Webwise have developed a browser based on the Rebus Symbols System that allows surfers to view pages as they were intended by the content developer, as plain text, or as symbols to help people with learning difficulties to browse the web. They can only do this with standards compliant pages, as extracting content from proprietary software such as Flash would be unreasonable to expect. When people think of screen readers, they immediately think of the visually impaired; but people with mobility problems, dyslexia and other cognitive difficulties, also rely on screen readers. If content isn't machine readable, then the chances are we'll stay with the situation we have at the moment; developers ensuring that their content displays correctly on a few mainstream browsers aimed at the average user.
With most of what is written about web accessibility, I can understand your frustration with the little bits that are written about people with cognitive problems. Designers and developers have it in their hands to make the web a better place for all. We've definitely got a long way to go, but the first step of the journey in achieving that goal is to follow standards and accessibility guidelines to enable emerging technologies.
Posted by Gez on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment2]
Activists for LD inclusion have a notable habit of adopting scorched-earth tactics like this. We actually aren't being negligent in accommodating learning-disabled persons; that group is simply difficult, and perhaps impossible, to fully accommodate.
We can make Web sites that work with no vision, no hearing, or no movement, or even none of the above. We cannot make a Web site work with no cognition.
Posted by Joe Clark on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment3]
Sorry, Joe. I did proof read the article but didn't pick up on your name being spelt incorrectly. I've corrected it and hope you'll forgive me, as I am ill at the moment. I only have a cold, but like most men, I treat it as if I have pneumonia *smile*
Maybe I'm misguided in my faith, but this is where I feel that standards play their part. When developers introduce markup for particular groups, it will invariably have an impact on another group. Maybe the solution to providing accessible websites to people with learning difficulties isn't something that can be dealt with solely at the markup level, but could be dealt with at the user-agent level for particular categories of learning difficulties? Communicate: Webwise is definitely a step in the right direction, and who knows what innovative developers will come up with in the future. Current browsers work particularly hard to ensure that content is rendered correctly; assistive technology would stand a much better chance of being successful if they could be assured that the markup was at least correct.
Posted by Gez on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment4]
I did both thanks, in fact, I read your whole book. If you feel I've misquoted you on any points I'm quite happy to scan the page in with the parts I quoted highlighted and upload it.
So, like I said, what do we do about it? We can go your way and do nothing and abandon the pretence of web accessibility or we can do something else. I don't agree that there's nothing we can do. The error IMO lies in the fact that WCAG are really just a token effort. Why shouldn't there be a double set of standards that reference the two main types of disability- one for physical and one for learning/perceptual?
So you knew about them but didn't inform your readership about them? Because they 'border on the self-evident to any canny standards-compliant web designer' no doubt. Couldn't the same thing be said about the whole field of accessibility?
So you agree with me than that accessibility is a myth? This isn't a 'scorched earth' tactic, or a 'scare' tactic or any other kind of emotive wording. Nobody said accomodating people with learning disabilities wasn't hard, the point of my piece was that:
a) Accessibility has become a designer 'buzz-word' but actually isn't really accessibility. Its partial inclusion at best. Its soothing to designers ego's but for 19% of the disabled community (in the UK at least) its next to useless.
b) There are little to no articles by the accessibility community on making sites accessible for people with learning disabilities. I'd like that to change.
Now who's using scorched earth analogies? Idealistic I may be, but I hope I'm at least reasonably realisitic; even I wouldn't expect anyone in a persistent vegative state to use a website. Moving into the realistic world, it *is* possible to build websites that appeal and are accessible to people with learning disabilities. As I commented, using Flash, whilst it might be touted as evil and proprietry by a whole range of people, it is possible to create very meaningful websites.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment5]
An interesting article.
However, there are some efforts being made to accomodate people with learning difficulties. We have just completed a site which has audiences that include people with cognitive difficulties.
The method we chose to aid these users was to make each page in the site available in either full or simplified form. An accessibility bar across the top of the site allows users to choose long or short content. Some pages do not change much, both others are reduced down to simplified content - condensed into bullet form.
http://www.gt.nsw.gov.au
Is it effective? From what we have seen, it is partially successful, but it is a very hard issue to address.
Russ
Posted by Russ Weakley on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment6]
An interesting perspective on accessibility. A few key points/questions come to mind:
Making things more accessible to 80% of people with some form of disability is better than not doing anything for them. Hardly failure, and hardly a myth. The fact still remains that working with and providing resources that are accessible to those with learning disabilities is the most difficult and least understood aspect of accessibility. I think Joe acknowledged that appropriately in his book. The body of knowledge in this area is very small indeed. So, Kev, here are some questions for you about things you said in your article: (I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to advance the dialogue and understand your perspective better...)
You said:
Can you provide some further explanation or examples where this is the case? I know of one example where increasing accessiblity for those with learning disabilities has drastically decreased the accessibility for all others, including those without any form of disability.
You also wrote regarding Joe's book:
I'm not sure I agree re: the lack of appreciation of the issues. What I find more interesting is your statement about no solutions being offered and your later comment that: . I agree. Do you have any solutions, recommendations or insight to offer? (I'm being serious here -- because it seems to me that without offering anything of value that contributes to the body of knowledge, your article appears to do nothing to solve the very problem you outline - that there are very few resources in this field. It also means that your article seems more inflammatory than I expect you intended.)
You also stated:
Some of us that have been working in the accessibility field for quite some time and long before it became a "buzz-word" are very happy that "accessibility" has worked its way into the language of designers and developers. To us, its called progress. Again, partial inclusion is better than none.
Your final comment was:
Again, can you provide any examples of this where Flash is used to specifically create a site that is more accessible to someone with learning disabilities? The learningdisabilities.org.uk resource you pointed to actually discussed Flash as being a barrier for many users with learning disabilities. How do you reconcile this?
I'm very interested to further the dialogue here -- if any of us is to understand the issues better, we need to be having these conversations. I'm sure we won't always agree (much like the people from the LearningDisabilities.org.uk site that say there is even disagreement between their experts!)
Cheers all, Derek.
Posted by Derek Featherstone on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment7]
There are people working on accessibility of websites for the learning disabled. Jonathan Chetwynd's work is largely centred around peepo.com. Peepo is the only site to achieve six out of six for being learning-disabled friendly from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.
It has to be noted that the W3C WAI Working Group doesn't have a good relationship with Jonathan. IMO, the W3C have dropped the ball (Disclaimer: I am biased, I have a lot of respect for what Jonathan is trying to achieve, and I've heard only his side of the story.)
Its fine to criticise the work done by WAI - but to implicitly claim that doing nothing is far better is just ludicrous. To call Tim Berners-Lee a lying or wrong is enough to brand you as a crank worthy of being ignored - this is not the best way of helping people with learning disabilities.
May I suggest that you - Kevin - make a stab at creating accessibility guidelines that can make websites more accessible to people with learning disabilities. You suggest above that two accessibility guidelines are needed, so starting from a fresh perspective and clean sheet may be of value. I'd be interested to see what results. I strongly suggest you have a long conversation with Jonathan beforehand (if you've not done so already) to see what he's managed to do so far. I'm sure Jonathan appreciates all the help he can get.
On citing sources, Joe Clark's excellent work is available online, and so the quoted extract in context is also available.
Posted by Isofarro on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment8]
Where exactly did I claim that doing nothing was better?
I'll cover the rest of the points later suffice it to say that I didn't say they didn't work for everyone, only that they don't work for 19% of the disabled population. When you compare that statistic to what both Tim Berners Lee is quoted as saying and what Julie Howell is saying then there is either a lack of understanding on the nature of diability or accessibility as they define it is a myth.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment9]
Here:
The word myth suggests that accessibility does not exist in a concrete identifiable or measurable form. I can believe you are King Kong, but that belief does not change you or have any concrete benefits - so not believing you are King Kong is just as effective.
Posted by Isofarro on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment10]
I think you might need to read what I wrote again and answer without putting words in my mouth. Your interpretation is flawed in the extreme.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment11]
OK, I'll do as much as I can bearing in mind the twin distractions of nice beer drinking weather and children but if I stop abruptly you'll all know why.
Derek (and anyone else): I am dfinitley *not* saying that 'nothing is better than partial'. I believe (and use this belief when designing sites) that makig a site accessible by current specifications is a good thing. My point is that it is not good enough.
No, I have no sure-fire solutions. I don't consider myself an expert on accessibility at all. Neither do I consider myself an expert on Learning Difficulties. My experience in that field comes solely from living with my Autistic daughter. My experiences with her tell me that images-esp animated ones- are easier for her to understand. She uses Flash and animated gif based interfaces very easily but heavy text sites (especially where they've been accessified to the exlusion of any imagery) she has no chance with. I don't agree that writing an article without offering solutions isn't helpful. I'm merely reporting on what I see every day.
And again, I didn't say it wasn't. I realise I'm poking at a few sacred cows here but nowhere have I said that partial inclusion is worse than none. I'm sincerely stating my opinion that it isn't enough- Tim Berners Lee and Julie Howells statements seem to back up my take on things.
I can't show you anything as its personal to my daughter but I've built her a web interface to acces her favourite sites in Flash and which allows her to browse images via an XML feed. As I say I'm not prepared to share it online as its highly personal to her.
Please don't think that I'm saying Flash is the be all and end all. I was trying to use an example that I used and that I know isn't well liked by accessibility and usability groups.
As I said to Gez, my overriding intention here is to bring what I feel is akin to an injustice to light. I'm well aware I'm being contentious and treading on toes but I do think this is an important subject which isn't discussed enough. I'm also more than ready to be proven wrong if I believe I am.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment12]
I read and interpreted it the same way as Isofarro, Kev. Maybe the article should been called the myth of inclusion for all, rather than WCAG and the myth of accessibility.
I totally agree, Derek. Rather than getting into the nitty gritty of who said what, it would be nice to look at what has already been done, and what we could do to improve the situation. I like Russ's idea of changing the content length, and am particularly interested in Jonathan Chetwynd's work on peepo. Another useful resource for developers looking to expand their knowledge in this area is the Concept Coding Framework.
Posted by Gez on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment13]
Thanks all for continuing the dialogue, without things getting too out of hand (yet!). A couple more points in response.
Kevin, you wrote:
I guess that is where I have to question the nature of your article, then. It still appears to simply be inflammatory. I know you didn't explicitly state that partial inclusion wasn't better than none, however, the tone of the article seemed to imply that all accessibility efforts were a failure because they still do very little to address that 19% of the UK population to which you refer, rather than a success because they have made progress to help the other 81% of the UK population with a disability of some sort. When I read and re-read your article, it still seems very dismissive in nature...
I agree with Gez -- perhaps a better title would have been the myth of inclusion.
I still believe a better tactic than what you've chosen to do here is to offer what you've learned through your experiences with your daughter -- something on which you are an expert. It wouldn't be inflammatory, it would be very helpful for people who care tremendously about universal accessibility to read about your experiences, and what things have worked, don't work, things you've tried.
As Isofarro has pointed out, Jonathon Chetwynd has done a lot of work in this area. Personally, I never fully understood Jonathon and what he was trying to do at peepo.com. I still have some opinions about his work and ways that I feel it could be made better, but I haven't really been able to find the time to engage with him on the issues - it's been very busy around here!!
I'm also interested in the work that Russ has done with changing content length. It looks like an interesting technique, and I'm excited to hear how it is received. My first thought after viewing a few pages was that I actually preferred the short version myself, and so I wonder aloud if the short version would actually be better as a default, and, is the long version even needed?
Cheers all... Derek.
Posted by Derek Featherstone on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment14]
First of all, the content hiding method was developed by Roger Hudson, an accessibility expert in Sydney who worked with us throughout the site development. He did testing on a wide range of users (including blind, sight impaired, moter skill impaired and cognitive impaired). You may have noticed that the accessibility strip had "easy click" this was for users with motor skill deficiencies.
It is very hard to tell how well the content hiding method worked for cognitive impaired users as our audience was very diverse - from users with slight cognitive difficulties to severe cases.
We felt that the technique could, if nothing else, be of benefit to helpers - many of whom are the real clients of the site. These people were often elderly themselves, and it could allow them to summarise content on the page for their patients/partners. The simple truth is that the accessibility strip could be too hard a concept for some cognitive impaired users anyway.
I've been discussing this overall concept a lot recently with Peter Firminger. He suggested that the biggest problem is that assiting cognitive impaired users is more about the reworking of content and/or overall site concepts that simply providing assitive accessibility techniques. Sight impaired and blind users can be presented with the same content and assisted with technology (relative font sizes, good colour choices and optimising for screen readers) but cognitive impaired users need to be addressed in a totally different way - through the re-organisation of content. this means that it is partially the responsibility of content developers as well as web developers.
The other thing this article does not address is that unlike sight impairment, cognitive impairment has other issues - like what is relevant and or important to present to these users. I work on the Australian Museum Website, and there are sections on the site that would be totally pointless to present in simplified form for cognitive impaired users - like detailed scientific research. However, it would be very appropriate for sections of the site (like our general fact sheets) to have a simpler version where only basic concepts are presented.
These sort of content reworking would be best done with professionals in the area of cognitive impairment though, as it could easily be overly simplistic and possibly insulting unless it were done well.
Happy to discuss/argue this further with anyone via email if needed.
Russ
Posted by Russ Weakley on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment15]
I don't really understand how me saying that IMO acccessibility is a myth is the same as saying doing nothing is better than partially doing something.
If I'd said that there was no point to accessibility then I'd totally agree with both isofarro and Gez but I didn't, I said that IMO accessibility was a myth- e.g. it doesn't exist in the sense that both Tim berners Lee and Julie Howell says it does. This doesn't equate at all with saying doing nothing to make a website accessible is a good or acceptable state of affairs.
I personally find that very sad. It seems to me that what you're saying there is that lay people can't express their opinion. If I'd said I was an expert on accessibility would that have made my article less questionable?
I did consider using 'inclusion' rather than 'accessibility' but I wanted people to be in no doubt- if we as a community are excluding a large percentage of people because of their disability then how can we claim to be producing accessible websites? We could claim to be producing partialy accessible websites maybe.
I'm not particularly fazed at the thought of being inflammatory- it seems to me that there's a deal of inflammation requied here to shake people from their nice, comfy preconceptions about the nature of disability.
Nobody has yet answered the central points- do we accept Tim Berners Lee's and Julie Howells definition of accessibile websites and who they should be accessible to? If not, does this mean they are wrong? If yes, then why aren't we seeing as many articles/tutorials/code snippets and websites catering to this user group? Do people feel that the WCAG (either 1 or 2 as it stands) are competent to deal with learning difficulties?
What I said to Gez when I asked him if he would publish this article was that there was a lot of exclusionary practice in the offline world which my daughter has had to battle through- to encounter it online is bad enough, to find it ignored and swept under the carpet by the very community that should be fighting for it the hardest is even worse.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment16]
I've not read all the comments yet, but I'm deliberately responding before I do as my criticism is of the article itself.
I'm an experienced web designer/developer, and though I've tried my best to keep up with accessibility concerns, I must confess I've never come across discussions of accessibility for learning difficulties. "Clear writing for the web", etc., a la Nielsen, sure, but not specifically making content comprehensible to people with bona fide cognitive disabilities.
It seemed to be a gross oversight, then, for you to not actually discuss (1) what these difficulties are, specifically, or (2) the basics of overcoming them, for web designers. I had to download the Mencap PDF you linked to to even get an inkling of what you were talking about. Ironic, really: in the sense of the word "accessibility" you're actually referring to, your article - to me - scored very low.
I'll go and read the comments now, but I must also say I think there need to be some qualifications here. Presumably this issue concerns general information, news, items of general interest, etc. Framing the discussion with the truth that some people - learning disabilities or not - can't understand things that are clear to others would be helpful in saving us from pointless misapplications of the generally laudable doctrine of equality. 90% of the concepts in this article would be gobbledegook to my mother, and she's pretty smart. It's filled with jargon and, as I said, basic omissions that made it quite opaque to myself.
Further, my mum probably wouldn't understand a word of Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'. Who's going to write the "accessible" version of this? Obviously this is silly - but where is the line where silly becomes debatable? Some rough rules-of-thumb, sensitive yet without politically correct illusions, to outline the content areas we're actually dealing with here would be really helpful.
Posted by Gyrus on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment17]
So you're saying that my article about how few resources there seem to be on accessibility for people with learning difficulties prompted you to download a link explaining it further to you? How's this a bad thing again?
Kind of the point really- I'm partly suggesting that these things aren't included in WCAG in the way they are impicitly included for people with a physical disability- the discussion you think I should quantify is one thats yet to be had as far as I'm aware by any of the accessibility community- if what I've wrote is a catalyst for that to change then I'll be more than happy.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment18]
Kevin,
Let me say something first -- I am getting to the point where I don't enjoy online interaction any more. It is next to impossible to get any real understanding of people when we are not interacting face to face. Nonetheless, I continually feel that I have to preface comments and questions online with a statement saying that I'm interested in the dialogue, and the questions I ask are serious, and not intended to be confrontational. Challenging, yes, but not confrontational.
Just a couple of other follow up points -- I had said that
You replied:
On the contrary -- your voice here matters just as much as any of the rest of us, and in some ways, more, based on your experiences with your daughter. I wrote that in response to your statement about your experiences with your daughter, not the fact that you say you aren't an accessibility or Learning disabilities expert. I can't emphasize this enough - your voice, Kevin, is valuable to this discussion. What I am questioning is the following:
Will you take up that challenge?
Here's my final opinion on the matter -- I don't think anyone here would argue that those with learning disabilities are the most difficult to provide for on the web, nor would anyone disagree that work needs to be done in this area. I simply believe that you would have been much better served by providing some input, some insight, some thoughts on how to make the web at large more accessible to users with learning disabilities based on your experience. Without providing any examples, anecdotes or thoughts based on what you have experienced, your article comes across (to me) as a rant. That is fine - you get to choose your writing style. But if raising awareness is your ultimate goal, I believe you'd have been better served, and these comments would have been far more productive if we were discussing some specific issues based on your experiences. At this point I'm still left waiting for the punch line...
I hope you understand what I am trying to say here -- if not, feel free to respond offline or here...
End of line for me... Derek.
Posted by Derek Featherstone on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment19]
I do understand Derek- like you I find online communication to be frustrating when one doesn't know the other participants well- but I do understand your desire to be challenging without confrontational as that was my wish when writing the article.
Hmmm. I can see that to a degree but I make no apologies for that. I do feel that everyone in the field has great intentions to rise awareness of accessibility but I also feel that a lot of people in the community think that we're at the 'mission accomplished' stage as far as mapping out the field goes. I disagree and hopefully the figures introduce a warning note- 19% is a lot of people, I don't see how we can consider ourselves to be building truly accessible sites whilst these people can't access them- within the bounds of reality of course.
Thats true. Its because I'm a) unsure of how to document the process effectively (up till now all tutorials/articels I've written are from pure design point of views) and b) I'm uneasy about 'using' my own daughter as a test case. I'll have to think about it.
I guess the trigger for the article is still the same- I wanted help and still need it and I was disappointed and angry to find virtually none existed in a community that promoted accessibility.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment20]
It's a bit like people who moan about how poorly open source projects are designed, or how they don't support certain features, etc. Don't moan aboutit, do something about it. For a large part, the problem is that "learning difficulties" covers such a huge and varied range of disabilities. There's certainly research out there, but nobody has pulled everything together in a few nice comprehensive articles. Instead of just pointing the finger and saying "see, the experts aren't that clued up about it"...why not write something yourself, and feed it back into the community and into the process that is shaping WCAG2.0?
Actually, alternative content can be beneficial for users with learning difficulties (and other users as well, of course), as they can select content which is appropriate to their learning style and more suitable to their needs. Saying that it's confusing is just as dismissive as those comments by people like Joe Clark that you're crticising so much.
Of course a W3C set of guidelines is going to suggest only using W3C standards. No news here. And here's the kicker: accessibility involves more than the rote mastery of the secret art of the Wuh-Kag. Not to sound all Matrix-y, but some rules can be bent, others can be broken...*if you have a valid reason*. Of course, those designers that simply equate AAA = accessibility are short-sighted. Even a AAA site can be far from accessible, just the same way that a site that passes XHTML validation can be oh so far from proper semantic, structural markup. What WCAG does is to give good, general starting points. If I have to break one of the guidelines for a good reason, I go ahead and do it - and keep in mind the valid reason why I did it. Even if something ended up in court, not meeting WCAG won't necessarily result in an automatic fine or anything. Again, if designers are naive and see WCAG as the be all and end all of accessibility, then yes, that is obviously a problem...
Tim's statement if not misleading. It's a vision statement. Unless I'm missing it, nowhere does he go on to say "and if you follow all our guidelines by the letter, you too can meet this goal". WAI does not claim to have all the answers, but they're certainly working towards establishing some baseline guidelines.
Accessibilty is a myth? Oh, ok then, I'll just give up trying then. A far more precise statement would be "All sites passing AAA are 100% accessible is a myth".
Posted by patrick h. lauke on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment21]
on comment nr. 4, Kev wrote
and you see, nobody is stopping you from using Flash...but if you do, it would of course be nice (and it would cover a good deal of the other 81% of the web population) to also include a non flash version wherever possible. again, this is a problem if naive designers just see the WCAG as an "all or nothing" type thing. i for one would not have any problems with a dual approach, similar to what many sites do, where you have a flash version and a reasonably accessible (A, AA, AAA, whatever you think works best) W3C standard version. of course, saying "flash is good for users with cognitive disabilities, so to hell with WCAG" would be throwing the baby out with the bath for all other users who can't/don't want to use flash.
don't overlook the following http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-alt-pages
in an ideal world, this who debalce could be resolved with modal browsers which adapt to the specific needs of individual users, who could create - in an easy, non propellerhead way, with wizards or something - a preference profile for themselves: prefer icons, no audio, chunked content. then, their particular browser and/or platform would have its own profile, outlining its capabilities: color display, handheld, no mouse, no audio capability. the server would get a request with both profiles, and choose the most appropriate way of presenting content among a whole set of choices, marked with meta data outlining the specific content's requirements (e.g. this is an audio file, requires audio output, has these other files as alternative siblings; this is a video file, high resolution, colour, high bandwidth; this is a flash file, requires flash plugin, only mouse accessible as it contains drag-drop functionality).
but until then, we're all trying to do the best.
a rather sweeping generalisation, of course. yes, i like my ego stroked. but i also care about my audience, and believe in the moral obligation - and not just the knee-jerk "we're gonna get sued" mentality that i've seen recently. some of us are truly trying, and personally i feel quite offended by your little dig at the "designers" (with your obvious negative connotation).
again, the best place to start the change is with yourself. if you've already had experiences in this field, why not write about it? if you know of pieces of research out there (beyond the narrow confines of the "web accessibility" community), point to it...even better, get in touch with the people working in those fields and get them to write something that can be passed to us here in the web community. just sitting there and saying "ah, these guidelines are not comprehensive, and there's nothing else out there" won't solve the problem.
Posted by patrick h. lauke on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment22]
Which is why I didn't and wrote the article instead.
Look, I'll say it again- I'm *not* an expert on accessibility, nor am I an expert on learning difficulties- just about everyone who's responded to this thread so far has much more experience than me in the field. I still struggle to get sites past 'AA' conformance. This is not my attempt at absolving myself but me saying that as someone who's trying to do the right thing I find it very disappointing that acccessibility seems to have an entrance criteria. I (niavely maybe) expected the playing field to be level- especially after reading the statments I quoted from Tim Berners Lee and Julie Howell.
Exactly! I'm not questioning anyones committment to that but where's the movement? One of the things I'm trying to do is highlight the fact that accessibility for people with Learning Difficulties has all but stagnated- dismissed by 'experts' and in terms of tutorials from the community, just about dead. I take your (and Derek's) point that change must start with one person but I genuinely don't feel that I have either the technical experience or the inside-out familiarity with accessibility guidelines that such a task would need. However, IMO, that *does not* invalidate me from having or passing my opinion.
Don't be- I include myself in that definition. And let's be honest, good intentions are all well and good but good intentions don't make truly accessible websites.
I really believe that as designers we need to relearn a bit of humility and admit that what we're currently touting as accessibility actually isn't. Its partial accessibility and whilst that's better than nothing (and sorry but the idea that I was claiming otherwise is ludicrious) its definitley not accessibility. Whether what Tim Berners Lee says is a vision statement or not, his intent is clear- as is Julie Howells. Can we truly say that at the moment we're building websites that benefit the broadest possible section of people? IMO, we can't and thus I can't see how we can call what we do truly accesible.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment23]
Actually, the above is a bit of a cop out. I'll try and do something thats not necessarily pertinent to just my daughter but is pertinent to those on the Autistic Spectrum.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment24]
Hi again Kevin,
I read your last posts:
Don't worry about the technical expertise, or the familiarity with accessibility guidelines. Speak from your experience, throw some ideas out, outline some of the obstacles you've faced, and some of the things you've tried to overcome them. It doesn't matter to us if it is your daughter you are discussing or if they are other people -- we'll never know the difference anyway. Let the rest flow from there... there are people around that believe in universal accessibility - the people here on this thread included. We are all believers, and if you'll pardon the cliche, we are all trying to "fight the good fight". We all want to make the web more accessible...
While the current state of the web precludes participation from many with cognitive disabilities, there is nothing saying that we can't all try to address that.
Cheers... Derek.
Posted by Derek Featherstone on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment25]
One of the difficulties of discussing learning disabilities is the wide spectrum and varieties of these disabilities. My sister was born with some brain damage which mimics many of the symptoms of dyslexia and dysnumera. She also has some recall and attention difficulties. She is able to use a web browser though she does have difficulty maintaining interest. There might be some commonality with an autistic child or adult, but there would be many divergences.
I think one of the reasons other forms of accessibility design have managed to get so much attention (sadly not universal, but at least prominent), is that it really doesn't involve altering content to a great extent. Adding alt and title, providing skip navigation links, separating content & presentation, and even proper table markup are not drastic changes in HTML coding, but rather small changes in approach and attitude. In some ways, it really involves just getting out of the way of accessibility software. As others have suggested, there are no XHTML codes or style sheet instructions that will scale content for someone with a learning disability.
Changing the content and its presentation for accessibility like Kev suggests is a task akin to (and even more complex than) translating from one language to another. Thinking about it, universality in the sense of L10n is also quite lacking. Few websites are multi-lingual, forcing people to learn English (or Chinese, or Korean, etc) or hire a translator or depend on poor-quality machine translation to get the content. The number of good translators is orders of magnitude higher than the number of good learning disability accessibility experts. So the task of reaching the other 19% is going to be a good illustration of the Pareto Principle (80-20 rule).
I'm glad you wrote this article, because in some ways I managed to wall off my work from my sister's experience (and I probably needed something "inflammatory" to get through to me). It's not going to be easy but I'm willing to experiment and learn more.
Posted by Patrick Taylor on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment26]
I'm really glad that I've read through all the comments related to this article, as I now realise that this wasn't attacking accessibility measures per se, but looking to raise the profile of learning disabilities (LD).
Of all the the accessibility issues, LD has to be the hardest for the web professional (but then it is for a whole bunch of other professionals too!) - and I feel it is (on the whole) an editorial issue as opposed to a coding issue. Good editorial practice would generally always aim toward, for instance, the Mencap codes of conduct (content chunking, clarity, short sentences, clear punctuation), and should always be aware that alternative methods of delivering a message (for instance a supporting Flash animation) may be necessary for some audiences.
I do think that it will be a harder sell than physical disabilities as even with good editorial practice and standards-compliant code, some additional effort is likely to be involved in re-purposing content for an LD audience. This article itself, and its associated comments, would likely pose difficulties for specific people with LD, and would doubtless take a long while to synthesise into a comprehensible form for them if so required.
Nonetheless, I think on the whole this was a refreshing take on accessibility - even if the tone verged on the confrontational at times.
Posted by Mark Thristan on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment27]
Kev,
Having read through the comments here, I can see that your article is not intended to be as inflammatory as it reads at first glance (and it does read as inflammatory at first glance; make no mistake about that). I understand your viewpoint about accessibility to the learning-disabled, and it is laudable. However, I daresay that your article isn't exactly constructive criticism.
You say that the WCAG does not do enough to support the learning-disabled. Fair enough, but where are the failures? You say that you're not an expert, but surely you must have some basic ideas, if you have had such success with your daughter. I am not asking you to document the whole process, but what sorts of problems did you face with this interface of yours? Leave formal documentation to the experts, but if you want to get people thinking, you need to give them something to think about.
You say that Flash is more accessible to people with learning disabilities. Fair enough, but it's well-known that Flash has some rather severe accessibility issues of its own; it's getting better, but there are some difficulties which are inherent to the format and thus unlikely to ever be overcome. This puts you in a position of needing to explain what makes Flash "special". What in particular makes it so much more accessible to those with learning disabilities? You seem to believe that Flash is inherently superior to W3C technologies where learning-disabled access is concerned; why is this?
Your Flash-based interface is actually intriguing. What does it do? Is it a shell around the browser, providing a new interface to the same HTML from her sites? Do you parse or scrape the sites and present them in some kind of alternate format? No need for specifics on this; we just want to know the basics of what it is. You are speaking of a field of accessibility which, while not new, is alien to many of the people who will read this; leaving them with no knowledge of this field other than that it exists is not a good way to start them on it. Some people might even try to argue that it's rude.
The whole point of this is that you offer no solutions, or even steps toward any kind of solution. Without the comments, your article reads mostly as "HTML BAD! Flash GOOD!" only in much more refined terms. I think this is the problem most people have with the way your article reads. By offering no constructive solutions, or even things to think about, it really does seem as though you're trying to say that WCAG is worse than nothing. I understand your message now, but I wouldn't have understood it without the comments. Perhaps that, too, could be considered a kind of accessibility issue?
Posted by Millennium on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment28]
I'm defintely not saying 'Flash good HTML bad'. I'm also not saying Flash is more accessible to those with learning difficulties. What I am saying in relation to Flash is that it could easily be used as a 'force for good' and doesn't need to be constantly demonised by certain groups.
Of course, but I think I've commented on what I feel is wrong with WCAG. Basically, I'm not saying whats there doesn't work. I'm saying whats there only works primarily for those with a physical disability such as a hearing or visual impairment. I'm saying they're not comprehensive enough.
Definitely not- I haven't built an all-Flash site in nearly 2 years. All of my latest sites have been at least 'A' complient with standards compliant XHTML and CSS2. Again, what I am saying is that I don't believe that dismissing an entire technology out of hand because it disables one type of disability is a good approach. Consider the reverse; if it was an accepted fact that Flash *was* more accessible for people with learning difficulties and WCAG was a set of accessibility guidelines for Flash would we be right to dismiss marked up sites out of hand? Of course not. There has to be fair representation for *everyone*. Thats the message I got from Tim Berners Lee and Julie Howells quotes.
At the moment two main things- its firstly a glorified 'bookmarks' for her favourite sites (she's only 4 so there's not a great deal in there as yet), with each of her favourire sites identified by a simple icon or drawing. Using the new Shared Objects scripting in Actionscript (I wrote a tutorial about this here: http://www.dotdragnet.com/tutorial-841) she can also add sites to this list and select an image from a bank of images to associate with the link.
There's also an image browser she can use to add more images to the bank from a pool of images I periodically create for her.
At the risk of being a troll, I semi-purposefully set out to make teh article clear enough to be understood but ambiguous enough in intent to ensure lively discussion. I realize thats both disingenuous and not exactly fair butin my defence I really do believe this is a much ignored area of accessibility.
Posted by Kev on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment29]
Disingenuous perhaps, but it appears to have been successful.
Posted by Mark Thristan on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment30]
I've found this an interesting discussion.
I've been looking at Accessiblity from a number of points of view. I used to work in Special Needs Education, and while I haven't used Webwise, I have used Writing with Symbols, which is the "Word Processor" variant.
The difficulty with using that, particularly for information that was content important and aimed at Adults (as is Russ' site) was getting the language into a form that the students could understand. Once we had done that, then selecting the right symbols wasn't so hard.
There is, as people have said a range of different cognitive disabilities. (In the US terminology is different to the UK - which doesn't help matters when you are trying to find out about it).
The other thing that I found intersting was the reference to Flash. I think that there are many times when Flash is much better for many things - for the vast majority of the population. I suspect that the vast majority of adult users of the web (unless blind) would find a Flash animation (I had a lovely one, but can't find it now) of how the heart works, much easier to understand than a written description - and if you have dyslexia, other learning problems, English isn't your first language - then even more so. My interpretation is that it was never intended to mean that Flash was bad, however, where you don't need it - for example Splash screens, or sites that are basically text - then there's no point.
Going back to the example of the heart, then you'd have a text alternative - and anyway, other users might want a text alternative e.g. to print out for revision - or whatever other reason you wanted to know how hearts worked.
Someone mentioned "measuring" learning problems. It's one of the hardest things to "measure" and also to experience. I could go into town, with a wheel chair/blindfold/ whatever, but to put my self in a situation where I can't reall y understand what's happening, or why, people using words that I don't understand, and getting cross when I can't understand - not really knowing what coins / notes I need to buy whatever - it's a huge issue that it's really hard to understand - it's far worse than being in a foreign city - because even when you can't understand the language - you have mimes, drawing etc to get your needs across.
I suspect that's one of the resasons that it's hard to make clear guidelines. As far as the peepo site goes, that's a greeat example of a site for those with quite severe learning problems.
Posted by Emma on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment31]
Hi Emma,
Kynn Bartlett wrote something similar about developers using screen readers to test their websites. It's very difficult to understand exactly what a visitor may be experiencing, unless the conditions are exactly the same. He was referring to developers using screen readers assisted by sight; in order to fully appreciate how a blind person uses a screen reader requires switching the monitor off completely, and takes weeks or months to become familiar with its use. It's very easy for a sighted developer to jump to the wrong conclusions when using a screen reader on their site, and of course, screen readers aren't only used by people with visual impairments.
Cognitive problems are even more complex, so what works for one person may not necessarily work for another. It's a very interesting area of accessibility, and one I would like to know more about. When people talk about websites being accessed by anyone, they're usually referring to documents being able to be retrieved and presented to anyone regardless of their disabilities, not necessarily comprehended by anyone. Developers can aid comprehension with images, animation, sound, clear and simplest language for the target audience, defining abbreviations and acronyms in full when they're first used and marked up as such when subsequently used, but it won't always be enough. It's an area that should also be aided by assistive technologies such as some of the methods outlined in this thread, and will be interesting to follow how advancements in this area progress.
Posted by Gez on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment32]
-=Please excuse anything in this comment that repeats points already made, I simply did not have time to read all of the comments=-
I beleive that accessibility needs to be more fully supported from both the mark-up and UA sides of the equation.
People with different disabilities need UA’s that interpret mark–up differently.
XHTML should support more accessibility function markup, the aim of which should be to allow authors to identify simplified versions, or multimedia options more suitable for some users, etc. However, we should not expect all these options to be squeezed in to one interface in one UA—doing so (in all but the simplest of examples) can only lead to a web site that meets no–bodies needs fully.
Disability related organisations need to begin creating standards based UA's that meet the needs of the particular group(s) they represent. I, as a coder/designer, cannot create a web site that meets the diverse needs of ALL users when the majority of the users experiencing problems are not using a UA that is adapted suitably to their needs.
The disability groups need to stand up, and work hand-in-hand with the standards groups and the designers to solve this problem.
Furthermore, to comment a little more directly about this article—I agree that the groups with learning disabilities are under-represented on the web, but what can be done to help these (potential?) users in the current UA's that are on the market? I find it very difficult to see how we can make our web sites accessible to those users. And how far can we go? Do we have to aim to support users who do not even know how to use a PC, or similar device capable of web access? How can we support those users, and should we be blamed for excluding them?
Sometimes I feel that it isn't a case of exclusion, but more of an inability (or an impossibility) to include.
Posted by Michael Ward on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment33]
Exactly. I was reading through all the comments wondering if anyone was going to talk about that. User agents are for the purpose of taking markup and delivering it to users. I shouldn't have to create Flash animations on my site. I shouldn't have to create two versions of chunked and long content. I should be able to code well (to guidelines that should be written better and more extensibly), and allow user agents to deliver that content in a way that suits the users. That way, the abled people don't become unable to use the site because it's designed for disabled people, and vice versa.
I can create a handicap-accessible building. But it's ludicrous to suggest I should have conveyor belts inside all the hallways to cart immobile people around. They have to meet me halfway and get a wheelchair. I'll give them the ramp and the elevator.
Posted by Eric Shepherd on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment34]
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - Indeed!
You've made an important error in your analysis of the UK government's figures relating to "people with a disability who would fall under the act." Annex A makes it clear that around 20% of the adult population of the UK - about 11.7 million people - are covered by the provisions of the Act. Each of those 11.7 million people may suffer from one or more disability. Your figures fail to acknowledge this since you total up the different types of disability and conclude that 29.6 million people in the UK have a disability. You then compound the error by removing those people that have disabilities in the categories of 'lifting & carrying' and 'continence' to give you a total of 20.3 million. By dividing the number of people with a 'learning and understanding' disability by this new total, you draw the following conclusion:
The fact is that the figures provided by the DDA do not allow you to isolate those people that "we would ... expect to be adversely affected by inaccessible websites."
The best that you can do is to divide 3.9 million by 11.7 million and then multiply by 100 to give you a figure of 33% of those people in the UK covered by the provisions of the Disabilities Discrimination Act (pause for breath) are people with a learning and understanding disability.
A correct analysis of the figures therefore gives more strength to your rant...I mean argument.
If it were possible to remove those people who only have a disability in the categories 'lifting and carrying' and 'continence', then the 33% figure would presumably be a little higher.
Apologies for my pedantry, but this was a glaring error and I felt it needed to be pointed out.
As for comments on the article I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said in the comments. The article is clearly polemical in nature and that is fair enough up to a point. But, like others who have commented here, I would like to see some constructive suggestions as to how we might begin to accommodate people with cognitive disabilities as well as those with physical disabilities. Given your experiences with your daughter you are as well placed as any of us to provide those constructive suggestions.
Posted by Will Bolton on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment35]
I am interested in all articles that define accessibility, and the cognitive issues do need to be addressed more. I have all your links open in tabs, ready to read.
But I think another issue, that directly relates to the focus on accessibility, is the focus on your audience.
If you focus too much on making a site accessible to learning challenged, what about the ADD person? I would think audience focus would be the most important. Serve the majority (of your own audience) the best you can, but try not to put roadblocks for the minority.
Posted by Bill Creswell on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment36]
A very interesting article and comments that followed. Rather than picking apart statements or offering rebuttals, perhaps a different perspective may be worth risking. Especially for those attempting to reach our LD group.
Motivation is defined by psychologists as an internal process that activates, guides and maintains behavior over time or gets us going, keeps us going and determines where we are trying to go. Coupled with a shift from behavioral to cognitive perspective and application through learning on the Internet and interaction of the learning process, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) technical standards actually scaled up the learning process by setting out remedies to barriers in learning. The hypertext presentation of teaching and learning material on the internet permits writing in what may be considered “everyday language” for general consumption, linked to more detail which may contain words or thoughts not used in a “normal” process, thereby exposing even a “casual” reader to an enhanced learning experience. The process may actually foster a desire to acquire additional knowledge or master new skills, and tends to engage the learner in activities that help them to learn: They pay attention in classes and to conversation, process information in ways that promote effective long-term memory storage, and learn from their mistakes.
Posted by Denny Lancaster on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment37]
Would you agree with the following? To have a well-formed XHTML 1.1 document prohibits it from fully conforming to WAI-AAA WCAG 1.0. This is because the requirements of WCAG conflict with the guidelines for XHTML 1.1.
Posted by Phil Carney on
[wcag-myth-accessibility.php#comment38]
Could you expand on what you mean? The only conflict I can think of is that XHTML documents should be served with the correct MIME type which cause older user-agents to trip up. I can't see how a well-formed document conflicts with WCAG.
Posted by Dave Ryan on