UK Disability Act

[Liam]

Hello.

I'm the head of a UK internet company. Recently we broadened our services to include developing websites to BOBBY AAA standard. We decided to go down this route after reading about the Disability Act in the UK, and some of the implications of not being compliant.

I have been amazed at how difficult it has been to gather information on exactly what the requirements for web design are. Certainly BOBBY AAA compliance seems to be a safe catch-all that address the concerns and recommendations of the DDA, recent reports based on surveys, the RNIB recommendations etc.

I think what bothers me the most is that I heard of legal action being taken against some companies who don't have the "right" requirements for full accessibility - yet it is so hard to find a set of rules - unless you purchase the services of associations tied in with the DRC or RNIB.

So, am I safe to recommend BOBBY AAA as the catch all that will address the needs of my UK clients who wish to meet the requirements of the Disability Act? And what are your experiences of trying to become compliant?

Many thanks.

Liam

[Webnauts]

If I was you, I would be careful with Bobby.
To be sure, you better use: http://www.cynthiasays.com

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If I was you, I would be careful with Bobby.
To be sure, you better use: http://www.cynthiasays.com

Thanks for the advice - why do you suggest the caution here? I have installed the Accessibility Toolbar which has the Cynthia Says checker on it along with about six others.

I find the accessibility requirements and advice very sensible and agree that this can lead to an all round better design for a website.

What I do find contentious is the exact level of accessibility one should strive to achieve. I know that UK Council websites are being told they need to have BOBBY compliance - but also the Disability Commission reports warn against sole reliance on any automated validator (such as BOBBY).

Any further advice/opinions most welcomed.

Thanks again.

Liam
http://www.wolfnetwork.net

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

Never depend solely upon a machine validator. They have problems and limitations. They don't check everything, nor do they keep up with current assistive technologies.

They are good starting sources and help get by some of the minor issues, but none really meet valid accessibility needs.

I was the accessibility consultant for http://www.yousearched.com which received the highest grade possible from the DDA and other organizations in the UK. If you need assistance PM me and we can discuss things.

[M0rtym0use]

BOBBY Standards are actually a basis for good coding.
All HTML tags opened and closed properly, all form items labeled all items given an id value in the tag so all is unique.

ASP.NET code actually uses this a part of the framework but the structuing is not perfect for BOBBY.

If you think about the way you design pages etc the concentration on the visual look is very much a major part of design but the majority of good looking designs are very accessible.

Web marketing is also very bad and actually has the opposite effect of the BOBBY compliancy.

www.rnib.org and www.a4e.co.uk are both fully BOBBY Compliant

The main reason for non compliance with BOBBY is that it takes a lot more time to develop these sites to ensure that each page is compliant.

Any thoughts?

MM

[Niko Holopainen]

This got me curious as well, please elaborate why we should be careful with Bobby or any other widely used accessibility validator/standards?

From the design viewpoint, we aim for proper accessibility and hope to achieve the levels required for an icon/statement etc. that confirms and gives visible value to the work we make to that end.

Yours truly,

[Webnauts]

As WebDoctor said above machine validators have problems and limitations. They don't check everything, nor do they keep up with current assistive technologies.

Therefore the best thing you do is, to find users with diverse disabilities who could test your pages!

[Webnauts]

Niko you might would like to have a look at this article:

Don't rely on automated tools for checking web accessibility http://www.mcu.org.uk/show.php?contentid=87

[Niko Holopainen]

Thanks for your reply, I've read similar statements earlier and the link you provided emphasises the point.

My question however is the statement about needing to be cautious... What I'm looking for here, is whether the reports/validators actually provide false information or is the case simply that one should be careful in judging the accessibility in the issues that require human evaluation.

I'm quite dumbfounded, wondering from where to get disabled people to check the site... I wonder if there's a local union or somesuch that I could ask help from, perhaps pay them a weeks accommodation in a nice resort in return. Any ideas?

Yours truly,

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

All machine validators will pass images that include ALT attributes whether they are NULL, space value, junked up by a novice or used correctly.

It only becomes apparent that it is incorrect when a trained accessibility specialist evaluates the web page at the code level and compares the codes to the visual presentation.

Another case is when heading tags are used incorrectly. If you read all the standards they specifically state that no heading tag shall be skipped. You can make your page without them, but if you use them you must start your page with an H1 and then subsequent headings must not skip a level.

These are simple cases and some that many web designers wouldn't even catch unless they knew all the rules.