SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    an inaccessible accessibility page!

    just thought i'd point this out for a possible slight bit of amusement: the link to the accessibility page on here http://www.suffolk.gov.uk (which is the main page of my local library site) isn't itself accessible! it doesn't appear at all in at least safari. unbelievable.

    also, even though they claim various levels of accessibility, a number of the pages in the library part don't even validate. oh dear. pathetic and crap imo.

  2. #2
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They do however say "web site is always changing and it is not possible to guarantee 100% compliance, although that is our aim. If you have any problems with any of our pages, please let us know."

    I don't think it's a great page, but I think that referencing the BBC's my web my way thing is a good start - after all it's of more practical benefit telling people how to adjust their settings than to list some incomprehensible conformance claim.

    Certainly I've seen better:

    And as regards safari, some would argue that universality (i.e. being able to use across different platforms/browsers) should be kept separate from the 'making the site usable by people with disabilities'.

    Certainly it would be better if the site is viewable with Safari, but it's not necessarily discriminatory unless users with disabilities somehow have no choice other than to use safari.

    But why don't you do what they suggest, and contact them to highlight the safari problems? They might be grateful for the heads-up...
    Jack Pickard | The Pickards

  3. #3
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    And as regards safari, some would argue that universality (i.e. being able to use across different platforms/browsers) should be kept separate from the 'making the site usable by people with disabilities'.
    And why shouldn't a person with a disability be allowed to use Safari?
    What is the point of making a page 'accessible' to people with disabilities, but only if they use Internet Explorer 6 on Windows, and have various third-party plug-ins (like Flash) installed?

    If someone cannot access the page with a standards-compliant browser, then it's inaccessible. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    Certainly it would be better if the site is viewable with Safari, but it's not necessarily discriminatory unless users with disabilities somehow have no choice other than to use safari.
    If it's not acceptable to discriminate based on one criterion, why should it be acceptable to discriminate based on another?

    Choice? I don't have the choice of switching to IE if a page only works in that 'browser'. I'm on Linux. Expecting me to run out and buy a new computer, a Windows licence, a firewall, anti-virus software etc. just to view that page is not reasonable – in my ever so humble opinion.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    Certainly it would be better if the site is viewable with Safari, but it's not necessarily discriminatory unless users with disabilities somehow have no choice other than to use safari.
    bugger people with dissabilities (that probably could have been worded better), what about me who am perfectly abled, but have trouble using their site just because i'm not using ie on a pc with javascript enabled (and that's assuming it does work fully in ie with js on, on a pc, which bearing in mind the number of problems i've come accross with that site, is quite an optimistic, generous assumption).

    what chance has a site got of being accessible to someone using some screen reader or something, when the site isn't even accessible to someone using safari? that's what accessability is for me: is the site at least basically usable by someone using a browser other than ie on a pc, preferably without the necessity of javascript -- nothing to do with dissabilities. a lot of sites don't even pass that accessibility test.

    But why don't you do what they suggest, and contact them to highlight the safari problems?
    i have been doing that, multiple times about many different problems, on and off over the past few years.

    They might be grateful for the heads-up...
    sick and tired of my emails full of moaning and technical babble would probably be closer to the truth

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bluedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    3,393
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe what you are experiencing is on a par to those with certain disabilities? Not being able to properly access a site/page leads to exactly the same frustrations as you're having, whether it be cause by your browser, bad coding, or other "accessibility" element.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    And why shouldn't a person with a disability be allowed to use Safari?
    I didn't say they shouldn't, and please don't imply I did! What I said is that it's not necessarily discriminatory. If it doesn't work in Safari, this affects both disabled and non-disabled users alike. Therefore it's not discriminatory in that sense unless disabled users (for whatever reason) must use Safari.

    Of course, like you say, it may discriminate on the basis of income: but that's perfectly legal... whether it's fair is of course a different matter...

    What I said is that some people would separate out the 'access via any platform/browser' and 'access to someone with disabilities' into separate issues. This is because platform/browser is more commonly (although not always) a matter of user choice. (I am aware of many situations where it isn't).

    Of course, you should use graceful degradation. You can produce a pretty accessible flash site, but if someone doesn't have flash, they should still be able to do the same things (only probably in a less whizz-bang way). That's graceful degradation, and that's good design. Same as sites working without css, but looking better with it...

    Quote Originally Posted by johnyboy
    ...sick and tired of my emails full of moaning and technical babble would probably be closer to the truth
    Yeah, I know that feeling - you can only say something so many times before you start to wonder whether or not anyone is actually listening :-)

    Still, you're doing your bit by pointing it out to 'em. You can at least hold your head up and say you're trying to help!
    Jack Pickard | The Pickards

  7. #7
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    I didn't say they shouldn't, and please don't imply I did!
    I know you didn't, and it wasn't my intention to imply that. It's just that I'm sick and tired of the attitude that it's OK to discriminate people with browsers other than IE and Firefox. (And I know you don't belong to that camp, Jack.)

    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    What I said is that it's not necessarily discriminatory.
    How can it not be?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    If it doesn't work in Safari, this affects both disabled and non-disabled users alike. Therefore it's not discriminatory in that sense unless disabled users (for whatever reason) must use Safari.
    Discrimination is not exclusively about disabilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackP View Post
    What I said is that some people would separate out the 'access via any platform/browser' and 'access to someone with disabilities' into separate issues. This is because platform/browser is more commonly (although not always) a matter of user choice. (I am aware of many situations where it isn't).
    These people must never have had a job where they had to use whatever computer equipment their employer gave them. They must never have worked behind a firewall that blocks JavaScript.

    They must also be quite well off to own multiple computers with different operating systems, and have lots of time on their hands to accept switching to another computer and firing up a new browser just to view a particular site.

    Accessibility is about avoiding barriers. That applies to people with different types of disabilities; to people on low-bandwidth connections; and to people who choose to use an alternate – but standards-compliant – browser.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  8. #8
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    are we getting into a classic "universal accessibility versus access for people with disabilities" debate again? i'll get the popcorn...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  9. #9
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Discrimination is not exclusively about disabilities
    Indeed it isn't. There are many types of discrimination - race, sex, disability, discrimination on the grounds of income (high prices) etc, or as you point out, discrimination against safari users. What I was trying to say - but obviously didn't do it well enough - was that this wasn't discriminating against disabled people.

    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by redux View Post
    are we getting into a classic "universal accessibility versus access for people with disabilities" debate again? i'll get the popcorn...
    I hope not - particularly since me and Tommy are in the same camp. Hopefully we're done now.
    But if you're getting it anyway, I'll have salted, please.
    Jack Pickard | The Pickards

  10. #10
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hey

    Just came in on this thread and there is a lot more browsers than ie and firefox and there are different people that use these different browsers again it is all down to preference. However I think that the library site should have taken a bit more care to look thouroughly at the coding of the site and made it more cross browser compatible.

    Dunc


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •