Colleagues,
Your joint appointment to the ATF is a visible positive indicator that the concept of web accessibility is maturing. I think all the choices for this task force are inspired and that between you you have an excellent pool of academic and practical experience.
That said I think you have a tricky task ahead of you. I note the positive steps you’ve taken in asking on your personal sites what we as designers and developers think are important steps and I’ve spoken my piece as part of this process. I also note with some concern that a basic concept is in danger of being ignored in some of the replies I’ve read (including my own).
Whilst its true that its important that CMS’s can handle content better and that screenreaders work with browsers as oppose to against them (to take two highlighted examples) I think we need to first have a task force that can put the house of accessibility in order.
I’m not talking about anything adversarial with WAI but it seems to me that the most common issues to do with the concept of accessibility revolve around what it actually *is*. This is an issue that both WAI and GAWDS have totally failed to address and yet without this basic, fundamental understanding our comprehension in this respect is being steered with a warped rudder.
Even our so called ‘guru’s’ have occasionally odd ideas about accessibility and what/who it encompasses. I read a recent comment from one of the biggest gurus in the field recently chastising someone who suggested content should be accessible as well as the code and interface design. Obviously this ‘guru’ is unaware of issues affecting those with a cognitive based disability.
Another big name claims that accessibility should only be about removing barriers and that pages scripted to take account of users real-life needs fail to grasp the ethos of accessibility.
Obviously there is substantial confusion not just about tools and technique but at a much more fundamental level. To that end I think item 1 on your agenda should be defining accessibility for web developers and all sub tasks of this item should be a clarification on who the main user base are, the software tools they may use, how we can currently level the playing field for some of these users and the steps we need to take to provide enhanced interfaces for some of these users.
We also need a redefining of the main user base. Currently and historically, the perception has been of users with a visual impairment. The majority of debate revolves around these users and to a lesser extent users with mobility issues. This situation ignores a third of those covered by the UK DDA. I’d like to see the task force question this emphasis – whats the point of a concept of accessibility that only caters to 2/3rds of its customers?
I’d also like to see a full and frank discussion of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 and an extensive debate on their shortcomings. Its obvious that WAI aren’t going to do this and I think you guys are ideally placed to highlight these issues.
Accessibility is a noble goal that deserves better treatment than its so far received.
The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.
Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
Thats the quote on the WAI home page. So far, due to uncertainty, poor defining and poor propaganda, WAI have utterly failed to convince either developers and/or business. One could argue its beyond their remit just as one could argue that what I’m propounding here is beyond *your* remit but in the absence of any constructive leadership from WAI its possibly up to WaSP and this task force to define accessibility in ways that are universally comprehendable by developers *and* business and that don’t exclude large sectors of the client base that the overall concept is supposed to empower and at the same time put pressure on WAI to do the same. I think these things are vital before we can even think of more detailed agendas touching on implementations such as CSS, software (screenreaders _or_ CMS’s) or the necessity or otherwise of validation.
Left Brain Right Brain 
You’ll have to pardon my ignorance on the subject of congnitive disabilities.
Do you feel that all sites should address congnitive disabilities and if so, to what extent? What would be some of your guidelines?
I hate to jump in hear and hijack a thread, but our recent article addresses some guidelines for developing sites for cognitive impaired users.
http://www.juicystudio.com/article/cognitive-impairment.php
Good questions Jonathon to which my honest answer right now is ‘I don’t know’.
I do feel that we, as web developers/designers need to firstly define what is meant by accessibility and to make a commitment to universal accessibility. That does _not_ mean I think we have to cater to every single individual as that is patently impossible but what I _do_ think is that we have up till now taken the (relatively) easy option of concentrating on the problems that are easy to solve and ended up, unintentionally, excluding a large amount of people – as you say yourself, a lot of us are ignorant to the needs of those with a cognitive disability.
What I think we need to do than is take a collective deep breath and step back to try and ensure that any steps forward from this point make better efforts to include as wide a range of users as possible. As an industry we tend to be early adopters, innovators, risk-takers, enthusiastic learners but I think that right now we have a duty to maybe try and *relearn* what we mean by accessibility and who it applies to.
I do feel that all sites should be as accessible as possible and i do think there are a set of universal guidelines that could be developed for suers with cognitive/perceptual disabilities.
A small example: Some autistics have a comorbid condition called Irlen Syndrome. This leads the text to ‘swim’ on white backgrounds – a great use of CSS for those with Irlen Syndrome therefore would be changeable background colours/text colours. Thats a very specific example of course.
Just as with sensory based disabilities (vision, hearing etc), cognitive disabilities come in various ‘flavours’ (autism, downs syndrome dyslexia etc) and each have unique issues to be addressed but I really do believe that if as much effort was made by us as developers as we did/are doing with those with sensory disabilities then we could research and develop a set of design and semantic guidelines to meet these users needs.
Hi Russ,
Its a great piece – I read it shortly after you announced it and commented in the thread on Gez’s site about it. I really think it should be seen as the ‘Rosetta Stone’ (if you’ll forgive my flair for the dramatic’) for cognitive design development.
Kev: That’s a very comprehensive comment you’ve made (I also like the comments pointed at WAI!) and I thoroughly agree that addressing what the true definition of accessibility actually is should be of paramount importance to the WaSP task force. Getting that part right really underscores all other noble endeavours they’re going to undertake.
Broadly speaking, Accessibility does apply to everyone using the web and interacting with it…so perhaps the very first thing that should be understood (and clarified) is that accessibility doesn’t purely mean improving access for people with disabilities only.
The second thing that needs to be stated is that ‘everyone’ does mean everyone who can use the web – and that ‘does’ include those with any disabilities. Ideally, no one with a disability should have trouble using the web – but how many disabilities will be accounted for? To represent every single disability that can impact on the use of the web, and all the conditions associated with them, would number in to the hundreds. To successfully research these points would take several years of strict academic research (a study exceeding the efforts of a collection of well-intentioned web-developers trying to take the concepts of accessibility to software vendors. Resolving these definitions of accessibility might be beyond the true scope of the task force and their core objectives). To say they have their ‘work cut out’ would be a bit of an understatement! For the task force to totally satisfy the definition of accessibility, and incorporate all the disabilities associated within the sum of all users, is almost an unfeasibly large task for the group and it would be interesting to see how they resolve that.
Agreed definitions for accessibility will dictate a improved understanding of how the web and web interfaces are being used – and how to investigate them in an appropriate manner.
I agree – getting clarification should be the highest priority and will improve the task force’s success with future projects.
p.s. Had any sleep yet? How’s Tabitha doing?
I agree, first define what is meant by accessibility and we know for one thing we’re talking on the same subject. I don’t envy the pressure now on the ATF though, this will take some time in the doing, but it’s a much needed initiative. For myself, I would like to know the real playing field I’m participating on as so much that has been said before I have inherited from word of mouth and dutifully passed on to others. Good solid information needs to be accumulated and then education, education, education. The truth is out there… (yes mulder I’m coming..)
An interesting and knowledgable article on the issues. Thanks.
I had reason to visit the website of a public school for disabled children last week, and guess what? Their website is inaccessible with my browser of choice, and there were no “alt” tags whatsoever on any of the links (which were all graphical). Apparently, whoever did their website didn’t seem to understand that there are more browsers in the world than just Internet Explorer. I hate to think what the site would have been like in a text-only browser!
Anyway, I found it highly ironic that a purpose-built school for the disabled has an inaccessible website.