Bear with me here, I am not anti-accessibility.
And to show my credentials, I spent a long time when I was younger volunteering for a Gateway club working with mentally and physically less privileged people, (sorry - friends, because they were) even going on weeks away providing care and support for the members. I still find time to do free work for charitable websites, and when looking for work on the open market (in those desperate times every freelancer goes through) prefer to look at the charity and social sectors.
But I want to play devil's advocate, and this is a discussion forum, so here goes.
The simplest way I can think of to put it is this:
Are shoe shops discriminating against amputees?
Is an artist working on themes of fire and foliage discriminating against the colour blind by painting in red and green?
Or an artist experimenting with a palette of incredibly subtle tones, against the partially sighted?
Are high minimum deposit bank accounts discriminating against the poor?
Does the Diana memorial discriminate against residents in the farther reaches of Britain by being in London, and against the poorer people of London by being in one of the most expensive areas of the city?
Are English Literature websites discriminating against individuals with learning disabilities, non-English speakers and people with bad taste in books?
Are all websites with text discriminating against the illiterate?
(Come on; find me a site without a single word on it - that WOULD be cool!)
I have kept an eye on accessibility guidelines ever since I read an RNIB report years ago and thoroughly agree in principle, but they are a couple of issues.
1) Tone (Perhaps the less important issue)
The RNIB rightly must stand firmly for the rights of those it represents, and it could be argued, have a duty to be EXTREMELY firm in order to counter prevailing lazy attitudes towards the disabled and the lobbying of self-interested parties who are only looking to save money or avoid expense, but I find the blanket aggression to be a little distasteful. It feels as though they are threatening absolutely everyone with legal action, and are only prevented from doing so by a lack of resources. Such an attitude, ironically, makes me feel much less charitable to this charitable organisation.
2) Aesthetics and Freedom Of Expression
So here's a thorny one for the philosophers amongst us. As implied in my opening questions, the implications of the discrimination laws for matters of art, design, aesthetics and personal freedoms could be absolutely draconian.
Can we build an artistic creation in the sunshine without fear of being branded callous towards albinos?
At what point does improving personal freedom for a few impact too greatly on the freedoms of many?
This is a wide reaching issue that goes far beyond the worlds of the arts, as I am sure you will all agree.
I won't explore this further now, but look forward to some stimulating responses.
3) Practicality
'Hello institutional behemoth, thanks for bankrupting my small charity over this issue!'
Okay, fantasy scenario perhaps. We know that RNIB is going to go for big high profile targets, and wouldn't attack a small charity (it would be bad
PR after all!) but they have made generalised threats, and aggressively lobbied for a law which has made criminals of millions of small well-meaning organisations (Remember - just cos you haven't been caught doesn't mean you are not a criminal!)
Let me elaborate:
I have helped out small charities with design and build. This is normally done on non-existent or miniscule budgets for little or no recompense meaning that development time is at an absolute premium, especially when you have to find parallel work to enable you to do the charity work.
RNIB wants me to spend hours ensuring that the sites meet ALL accessibility guidelines.
This would mean any developer in a similar situation could have little or no time for design and content. Now isn't that a kicker? Suddenly with bad design and no content a website is accessible to practically NO-ONE! On top of which they will attract few or no sponsors, depriving the charity's beneficiaries of valuable assistance.
Surely this is not what they mean. There are millions and millions of charities, hobbyists, musicians and more without the budget, time or skills to implement these guidelines. RNIB seems to suggest they should somehow sort it out or get off the web unless they want to face litigation and bad publicity.
Now that's what I call practical... ;)
And then there is design and identity - maybe you have opted for a very cool low contrast corporate identity that has been developed over the years and is well recognised. Do you now ditch it? Are you morally repugnant for not having done so in 1995?
And what about target audiences?
Poor under funded charities aren't necessarily trying to be accessible to the disabled themselves - they aren't providing online services to the disabled (although one charity is providing IT training in Buddhist monasteries for disabled people in remotest India)
They are targeting the well off, the rich, the privileged - the ones who can afford expensive contact lenses, designer glasses and laser surgery. (Despite the face that the rich are the least likely sector of society to give, and then the ones who give the smallest proportion of their time and money, but that is a different story...)
Admittedly, the people they are most targeting are the socially conscious, who aren't typically A1 demographics, but compared to the people who need help they are still incredibly privileged and wealthy.
These people will not be impressed by a disproportionate effort put into accessibility. They want slick presentation and high usability values (usability in particular can be hampered by strict guidelines IMHO)
These are the core audience - in fact the ENTIRE audience. Is it not another disservice to the beneficiaries to drive away potential donors?
All advertisers (and all websites are adverts) target their audiences. Investment banks do not advertise in motorway service stations in the remoter parts of the country - they advertise in densely populated, well off areas. Even on the London Underground the majority of such adverts are found in the stations around the City of London and other financial districts (i.e. Docklands)
A company's advertising manager has a duty to utilise his budget to the company's best advantage, and the same applies to the examples I have given - and every other form of business on the planet.
Have the RNIB made any complaints about UK TV's Channel 4 campaign 'Black Friday' which featured dark grey text on a black background? What point and impact would there have been had it been white text on a black background?
It may not always be the most efficient use of resources to comply with these guidelines.
As a comparative example, let me talk about browser compatibility.
Every one on this site is sure to know one thing. Internet Explorer is the Godzilla of browsers.
The vast majority of users are browsing our sites with it (to all the tech-heads consternation!) and if you take advantage of an IE-only feature to give added functionality for IE users then you are not committing a mortal sin (as long as core functionality is maintained for other users)
But even with all our efforts to be as compatible as possible, we can never cover EVERY possibility. I remember years ago reading a statement to the effect that this can only be accomplished by building plain text only sites, and it is even truer today!
But not useful. 100% access, 0.01% usability.
Even aiming for a very high compatibility is problematic - there is an exponential scale whereby past a certain point every bit of effort brings ever-decreasing benefits.
Are we (and our clients) allowed no free reign to decide where to draw the boundaries?
I know people (although I disagree with them) who build sites that ONLY work, even on a basic level, in IE. Bad call perhaps, but they know that even if you don't use IE it's a 99% probability that you have it installed and can use it if you so wish.
That's their call isn't it? Surely it is their loss if they lose custom because of it.
OK, I have gotten a little off track here so let me wrap up.
The real target of these laws are the big boys, the massive corporations who can afford not to care, and are still desperate not to spend a penny that doesn't make them 2 (or 2000) in return. But they affect us ALL!
And remember kids, this law isn't just about that inter-web-net-mcguffin all the kids and geeks are banging on about (give me a wireless radiogram with glowing tubes the size of a garden shed any day of the week!)
Almost all of your clients have a real world presence. Do they have text phones? Are the staff trained to assist people with speech impediments on the phone, or physical difficulties whilst on the premises?
How many unscrupulous pseudo-persons are instead taking advantage of the less able?
I'm sure you can all think of some serious implications, and don't forget, just because you aren't being sued, doesn't mean you are legal!
On that tip, however, I recall going on an outdoor week with Gateway in Wales in the early 90's. When we went rock climbing, no one complained about the lack of wheelchair access to the cliff-top. We were there to help people overcome their personal challenges, not hide them away from the real world.
4) A positive note!
Although rather self interested...
Perhaps all the extra hidden content required for screen readers and accessibility is a boon for
SEO? Does this content get spidered, and will it affect your rankings?
Well that's all the ranting from me tonight. I am really interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue. I hope you have enjoyed some of it.
To say goodbye I thought I would just say a word about my favourite charity.
Links India (
http://www.links-india.org) work in northern India with Tibetan and Indian disabled children and orphans, providing sponsorships and helping to provide educational resources in one of the most deprived and remote areas of the world.
The charity founder keeps it going alongside a full time job, and still manages to find the time (and pays for it with her own money) to travel to India at least once a year, often at personal risk to life and limb, not least through asphyxiation due to red tape.
An exhibition of photographs at St. Pancras Hospital in London earlier this year garnered some much-needed and well-deserved attention, but as ever, more help is required.
Take a look, if only for pictures of some of the sweetest children on the planet.
Ways YOU can help:
Money!
Donate to the charity, or make Amazon purchases via the site, making money for Links India through the Amazon affiliate program.
Backlinks!
Go on, please! It would be a massive boost for them! I'm sure you can easily work out the keywords required - or PM me for further help.
Time & Skills!
If any of you fancy following my lead and turning away from the darkside (yeah, I know, Doom III is so tempting...) I am sure Links India would appreciate any help and advice. The website is incredibly basic thanks to all the restrictions mentioned earlier. I intend to get them PayPal'ed up for donations and postcard sales ASAP but would appreciate help and advice on alternatives and improvements.
http://www.links-india.org
Good night every one!
DisasterMan
absolutedisaster.co.uk
MuffJam.com
Interview with the RNIB
Linear Mode
