The industry needs to structure itself so that self trained individuals who read a book or hack code they steal from others are not able to bastardize good web design. After all Plumbers, Electricians etc have to be qualified and licensed, so it should be the same for the IT industry.

Plumbers and electricians need to be qualified because their mistakes can and often do bring injury, property damage, illness and death to people. Bad web design doesn’t have an equivalent risk to flood your kitchen, contaminate your water or electrocute your kids.

Even the worst web site is unlikely to damage people and property, so I can’t see that regulation ever getting legs.

Plus, the web is a legitimate hobby for many millions of people. Should there be a legal onus on a 12 year old girl to make sure her page about her cat is accessible.

I don’t disagree with the general sentiment of your comment, but the web is a much more complex arena than plumbing.

#
Grant Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Web sites should only be created by fully qualified people who have an understanding and been trained in the need for usability. The industry needs to structure itself so that self trained individuals who read a book or hack code they steal from others are not able to bastardize good web design. After all Plumbers, Electricians etc have to be qualified and licensed, so it should be the same for the IT industry.

Are you kidding me? So you honestly think the “graduates” who come out of schools should know more than those who are self taught or who have been working in the industry right?

One might like to think this is the way things are but let me provide some insight:

I never studied it in school but I now tutor and teach people who have graduated with degrees in what I do. Go figure… Damn that self-taught book learning, and hands on practical experience instead of sitting in a class!

Granted… There are no standards in the industry; However, the real problem is that half of the formally educated people I know have had to self-teach themselves post graduation because the classes are/were out of date, the methods inaccurate and the coding was poor practice.

Until there are no longer major changes happening every month let alone year in the way things are done… Self-learning is the ONLY way to stay in the game.

It seems to me that many of the detractors believe that making a site accessible is a lot of extra work when it really isn’t (assuming you actually know your trade). Much like the proponents of table-based design this notion seems to be pushed by a bunch of third-rate “web designers” that acquired their skills in the late 90’s and are too set in their ways to change.
Also, accessible, semantic HTML is good SEO, so convincing your client shouldn’t be difficult at all.

Not only should everyone be concerned about making their site accessible (obviously, gov’t does for legal reasons) but retail organizations like Target, Microsoft, and other company that “sells” products should be very concerned with making they’re site accessible. From a gov’t perspective it’s about improving access to information. From a retail perspective it should be “to increase our sales over the other guys!”

Now, I don’t know the exact numbers, but I believe it was somewhere around 20% of people have some form of disability, handicap, etc (be it hearing-, visually-, or motor- impaired). That’s a large percentage. And depending on your business (Microsoft or Target for example) have a substantial customer base that has a disability in some form or fashion. There’s also another significant percentage of people that have a disability that want to use certain retails stores online but don’t bother b/c they know it’s not accessible to them. If those sites suddenly became accessible to them, it drive more customers to the site, help increase sales, and paint a nice, rosy picture of the company because it now “cares” about accessibility of their site. Although that might not be the case from the managements perspective, it will appear that way. Whether they do it because they truly care, or they do it for their profit margins, the end goal is the same…an accessible site that everyone can use.

There’s no excuse for not making your site accessible other than ignorance.

Two inverters power the WII , the wireless router and the Windows 2000 pc in the trunk (Running a WAMP stack as a local webserver/php environment). The WII connects to the “internet” in the car via Localhost.

Parking the car in the garage for a few minutes (ignition turned off if you try this at home) syncs and downloads my todo list, emails and latest MP3’s.

So far, I’ve gotten it to recognize a head roll (you know, the way the ‘Sisters’ do it when they ’snap their fingers in a Z’ to return to the main audible menu, standard Nod for No, head shake for yes and so on..

My BIGGEST problem is ambient infra-red noise coming from all over the place, and curious cops.

What people dont realize is that developing for that “loser market” i.e. the blind/handicapped, opens up a product to millions of people who CAN see, but need their eyes for the road!

Think a web accessible Howard Stern/Talk Show scenario, where you can nod to agree/disagree…of course, you will probably need some kind of ‘Puke Interface’ but that’s outside the scope of this thread!

I hear what you’re saying, and when you get that watch, let me know,maybe I’ll consider jogging (but doubt it… :-).

But the issue at hand actually IS bring the web to those that cannot see or easily navigate via a mouse; that is the main crux of web accessibility in today’s web market.

But thank you for mentioned “out loud” that “accessibility” doesn’t just mean “blind”… The most hilarious/annoying comment I hear about web accessibility is “what makes web surfing from a wheelchair so difficult?”… Alas, we have so far to go…

Atg

Steve,

The idea of olfactory sensations while surfing the net is actually dreadful for me. Maybe I have see the “Fart Button” one too many times as a banner on some site but…

Seriously now. For people like me who are dreadfully allergic to something that is a commonly used item. Olfactory sensations would not be a good thing. In fact… It could be very dangerous for me indeed. A public shopping mall is like a death chamber at times.

Something to consider as we push our evolution onward. Personally I would protest such a move. Mind you I also feel the same about “Smell-a-vision”.

Shelley

Praying the days of that are so far off she will not be here to see it.

Who the hell was it that decided that ‘accessibility’ is something that some dumb-add “Jaws” software can read/parse?

Just because the screen reader can read it, doesnt mean that whats being read will make sense!

The web is primarily a uni-sensory world (sight) when it doesnt have to be. Right now, the most exciting accessibility device to come down the pike is…you guessed it…THE NINTENDO WII!

you heard me :)

It brings a hitherto unknown component to a web-page….TOUCH (perhaps under appreciated by me and you but a whole new world for the blind) With its motion sensing (and soon in v2, positional sensing as well) we can have a web interface that will give us true immersion:

Example: Your wristwatch is a browser that connects to “HOW TO JOG.com” it continuously uploads your position via gps, while motion and position sensors “watch” your posture and send back encouraging words (or a drill sergeants abuse) over your headphones!

THAT is true accessibility, not this HTML parsing, “what is semantic” bullshit :)

We need to think out of the BOX MODEL and visualize our web sites in 3d or 4d modes with Audio,tactile (and perhaps olfactory) imagery.

Also, dont assume that BLIND people are the only handicapped people who need to be ‘enabled’ by our accessibility efforts!

In my own (government) organisation, the problem is not that the powers-that-be think accessibility is unimportant, it’s that despite having a huge internet site with invalid code and 15-20 nested layout tables on every page, they think they’ve achieved it, and nothing that I can say (as a pleb who isn’t even in an IT role) will convince them otherwise. They acknowledge a problem with pdfs and forms, but not with the site as a whole.