TheWebDoctor(tm)
08-09-2004, 05:42 PM
I often get called in to consult on accessibility needs. I've consulted for both small and large business and often find accessibility is a definition provided only by individuals that assume they understand the issues and then don't. Probably the worse thing I've ran into is the designer that says, but Bobby says ... or but Cynthia Says! ...
You have to remember those tools are machine code testers. They're not as smart as people think they are. Just because you're page passes their conformance requirements does not mean they are accessible. They have problems. They have holes. And, worst of all ... they are only as good as the programmer.
The developers of Bobby cite they have issues they are working on. Developers of Cynthia Says! ignores many issues. International studies have shown that Cynthia Says! checks less things than Bobby does. Additionally, trained accessibility evaluators catch things that all the machine testers fail to catch.
Probably one of the worse things I can see and that actually gets by the HTML/XHTML validator is the poor use of heading tags. There are specifications and examples on how to use heading tags properly. Some SEO people state you'll get penalized if you follow the standards ... they don't put it in those words, but that's what they are effectively stating.
Bobby will catch it if you skip a heading and go from H1 to H3 or start with and H2 or less. However there are other issues that it won't catch. I've probably seen them all at one time or another.
Then we have people that state CSS will get you penalized. Oh yeah, we have people that state that too. Sadly, or rather fortunately for me and some other standard buffs, that is not the case. Search engines have standards they must follow as well. Regrettably, not all follow the HTML/XHTML standards, but those were not the standards I reference.
Before you can be an accessibility consultant you must know the HTML/XHTML standards inside and out. Don't assume you know simply because the validators didn't catch the problem. Study the standards. Make them a part of your life. In that way and only that way can you even consider yourself an accessibility consultant.
WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.
Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it is important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to H3). Do not use headings to create font effects; use style sheets to change font styles for example.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20000920/#grouping
So, my question is why does it cost more for a professional to do their job correctly than it does for a professional to do a less than adequate job? When you do it all the time it becomes second nature. (Oh yeah, my pages lack some fine tuning and I admit it. I'll get to it.)
The thing is I know and admit there are problems. To walk away and deny there are problems would be foolish and a slap in the face of my profession.
So, I challenge the accessibility consultants to be more realistic. AND, YES I would support government requiring business web sites to be accessible.
You have to remember those tools are machine code testers. They're not as smart as people think they are. Just because you're page passes their conformance requirements does not mean they are accessible. They have problems. They have holes. And, worst of all ... they are only as good as the programmer.
The developers of Bobby cite they have issues they are working on. Developers of Cynthia Says! ignores many issues. International studies have shown that Cynthia Says! checks less things than Bobby does. Additionally, trained accessibility evaluators catch things that all the machine testers fail to catch.
Probably one of the worse things I can see and that actually gets by the HTML/XHTML validator is the poor use of heading tags. There are specifications and examples on how to use heading tags properly. Some SEO people state you'll get penalized if you follow the standards ... they don't put it in those words, but that's what they are effectively stating.
Bobby will catch it if you skip a heading and go from H1 to H3 or start with and H2 or less. However there are other issues that it won't catch. I've probably seen them all at one time or another.
Then we have people that state CSS will get you penalized. Oh yeah, we have people that state that too. Sadly, or rather fortunately for me and some other standard buffs, that is not the case. Search engines have standards they must follow as well. Regrettably, not all follow the HTML/XHTML standards, but those were not the standards I reference.
Before you can be an accessibility consultant you must know the HTML/XHTML standards inside and out. Don't assume you know simply because the validators didn't catch the problem. Study the standards. Make them a part of your life. In that way and only that way can you even consider yourself an accessibility consultant.
WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.
Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it is important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to H3). Do not use headings to create font effects; use style sheets to change font styles for example.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20000920/#grouping
So, my question is why does it cost more for a professional to do their job correctly than it does for a professional to do a less than adequate job? When you do it all the time it becomes second nature. (Oh yeah, my pages lack some fine tuning and I admit it. I'll get to it.)
The thing is I know and admit there are problems. To walk away and deny there are problems would be foolish and a slap in the face of my profession.
So, I challenge the accessibility consultants to be more realistic. AND, YES I would support government requiring business web sites to be accessible.