Jeffrey Veen: I don’t Care About Accessibility
Jeffrey Veen: I don’t Care About Accessibility (speaking notes from his panel at SxSW and one of the best pieces I’ve read on the subject of web design for a long time) (via del.icio.us)
Jeffrey Veen: I don’t Care About Accessibility (speaking notes from his panel at SxSW and one of the best pieces I’ve read on the subject of web design for a long time) (via del.icio.us)
10:53 am on 19 March 2004 :::
Stu Says:It\’s a pity we don\’t all live in that same \’Web design fantasy world\’. He understands the craft of web design, so he can work with developers who use standards. If I tell someone \”Uh, yeah, we won\’t be able to get that menu to float over there considering the semantics of this list\”, they usually look at me like WTF?
12:53 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Mal Says:Considering the semantics of the list? WTF?
Seriously, though… what *does* that mean? I know the meaning of \’semantic\’ (oh, the recursion!), but what does it have to do with floating and whether or not it\’s possible?
1:49 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Stu Says:I was quoting Veen there. You\’re right, that sentence is babble (maybe Veen\’s understanding isn\’t so good afterall, or maybe it was just a bad example). But if I tell someone a horizontal menu should be a list, because it\’s better to use semantic markup, they often don\’t see the point of making the extra effort.
2:33 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Stu Says:It\’s also worth noting that it\’s not safe to assume that just because developers are building sites with web standards, and the latest techniques in web design \’craft\’, that the sites they build will (automatically) be accessible. Just by making sure your (X)HTML is valid, your site will immediately be more accessible, but that\’s not the end of the story. Designers may utilize image replacement techniques (and other CSS trickery) – with the best of intentions – but if those techniques are flawed (as some have been proven to be), accessibility can be impaired. People can\’t even agree on the usage of accessibility aids such as skip navigation links.
3:07 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Matt Says:Related piece at SvN: \”Web design going in the wrong direction\”:http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000600.php
A key quote from it:
bq. \”UI designers are making the same old fundamental ?forgetting about the human being on the other side? mistakes ? except this time their code looks better. Humans ? not code validators ? use interfaces.\”
I think that\’s very true. I shall post my own thoughts on all this when I get a minute.
6:00 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
natis Says:I think this essay lacks one important aspect in the equation of why things from time to time are not accessible: the client.
7:12 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Mal Says:True, but we can\’t just pass the buck that easily – the client can\’t be left alone to judge the worth of accessibility. When developing software, it\’s part of my job to help a client see the business value in all aspects of a project. This includes things that are otherwise given little consideration, such as usability. Likewise, it\’s the responsibility of the web developer to help clients see the value of accessibility.
Or maybe you\’re saying clients *do* see its value, but that there simply *is* little business value to accessibility – and that\’s why the US gov\’t has taken measures like Section 508 to ensure it\’s addressed?
7:14 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Mal Says:Sorry – that came across really crap and preachy (not to mention badly marked up!). Didn\’t mean it so.
7:45 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
natis Says:It\’s very true that as developers, it\’s our job to educate those that we are working for but I can\’t be the only person that feels like it\’s almost futile, can I? Since I don\’t always have direct contact with the clients, I try to convince project managers to either include me in all the client discussions or try to educate the project managers so they can convince clients of all the things that should be taken into consideration. But most project managers (save one, who is just brilliant and willing to bring the right people to the table) tend to just forget or not bother with the small details.
There have been times where I would just be given a PSD and told to code it without even knowing we had the project, hence I wasn\’t involved in anything up until everything was signed off on and told to start running with it.
On the other side of the battle, I work in a department of about 50 web developers and engineers and I still have to explain quite regularly that things like (and this is an example taken from a recent email I sent company wide after seeing it numerous times)
<div align=\”left\”>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
</div>
Like really, what on earth is that and why are such things in much of the work my co-workers produce?
In regards to Section 508 compliance, it\’s a joke! As a gov\’t contractor, I\’m provided with a template that\’s supposedly 508 compliant, yet it\’s far from it, for example: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
You\’ll see all the comments EPA puts in to mark off what is part of the template that can\’t be touched and what\’s not.
Maybe after two years of standing on a soap box, my legs are getting tired.
Also, remember Section 508 only falls on to products delivered to gov\’t agencies and doesn\’t mean that companies like IBM and the such need to follow the guidelines for their own personal products.
11:31 pm on 19 March 2004 :::
Phil Says:Working in a smaller company, it\’s easier for us to make decisions about how we build something, but it\’s still a struggle to describe the value of accessibility and web standards to clients.
More than often we gen up on Mr. Veen\’s Adaptive Path essay – The Business Value of Web Standards, which give us some ammo to argue our point.
2:43 pm on 20 March 2004 :::
Stu Says:I have to agree with Natis about the difficult position of the developer. In an ideal world we wouldn\’t have to spend so much energy trying to convince clients/project managers of the value of accessibility and web standards. More often than not it\’s developers putting in the extra effort to build a site properly and make it accessible. One could argue that building a website implicitly means making it accessible and standards compliant (certainly this is the way I approach my work). Should we then charge more for this service? Arguably no, especially if we want to be competitive. But in reality that means competing against other devlopers who are happy to build inferior sites (and able to get away with doing so) for the same money (thus more profit). If houses were built like websites there\’d be a hell of a lot of jerry built houses out there. I think the first step in correcting this is to educate clients, but the task of doing this shouldn\’t fall to developers.