Do-It-Yourself Accessibility

[raboo]

These comments are in regards to the SitePoint.com article 'Do-It-Yourself Accessibility'.

I think it is high time that the major players in web software development like Macromedia and Adobe should implement proper accesibility testing facilities in their programs. Since everyone agrees that accesibility is a major issue, the software should be adapted. LIFT is a nice idea, but it is far too expensive for what is and does. This should be standard in a wysiwyg editor. Only then we can make sure that all future websites are accessible to everyone. Then Jacob Nielsen can stop complaining about web designers

[redux]

jakob is the high priest of usability, not accessibility...

[Nicky]

The majority of websites that are accessible are normally usable, however the same cannot be said the other way round. A lot of usable sites are NOT accessible.

raboo, nice to know someone's reading the stuff!

[iTec]

Originally posted by raboo

I think it is high time that the major players in web software development like Macromedia and Adobe should implement proper accesibility testing facilities in their programs.

Dreamweaver MX has got accesibility testing built in, both section 508 and W3C/WAI guidlines.

[raboo]

Dreamweaver MX has got accesibility testing built in, both section 508 and W3C/WAI guidlines.

Yes, but it's so primitive. I've tested the demo version of MX and actually, overall, the difference between DreamWeaver4 and MX is so small (apart from the php, asp features) that I'm going to wait for the next upgrade, with hopefully a more intelligent usability checker.

raboo, nice to know someone's reading the stuff!

Well, I do like the articles. They're useful and the fact that you can comment on them, I find great. I must confess that I hadn't noticed it before. I always gave comment in the popup window of the voting page
I discovered it only a couple of days ago, when I actually saw a comment underneath the article.

[redux]

Originally posted by Alcmene
The majority of websites that are accessible are normally usable,

i beg to differ. accessibility is mainly a case of technical implementation of certain standards to guarantee that different browsers/devices can still make full use of a site, regardless of whether it's displayed, read out, navigated via mouse, or keyboard, etc. usability goes beyond the mere technical details and looks at a site as a whole, from an almost detached point of view. i can make a site that's 100% accessible, but whose site structure is complete rubbish. usability testing would bring the shortcomings of the structure to light (hopefully).

i think accessibility and usability certainly go hand in hand in order to make a good site, but one doesn't automatically follow from the other. my GBP0.02 anyway.

[Nicky]

Well, when I build an accessible website, I consider it part of the design process to ensure usability. For example, consistent navigation MAY be a usability issue, however I also consider it an accessibility issue as it will make the site accessible to users with cognitive disorders.

[iTec]

Originally posted by raboo
Yes, but it's so primitive. I've tested the demo version of MX and actually, overall, the difference between DreamWeaver4 and MX is so small (apart from the php, asp features) that I'm going to wait for the next upgrade, with hopefully a more intelligent usability checker.

Overall i think there is a huge improvement in MX over DW4, namely in standards support, quality of code generated and other features, such as the validators, it is one of very few pieces of software where i have not regreted upgrading.

MX has not got a usability checker, its allmost imposible for a computer to determine if a site is usable (it would need to use your site, not just read the code). I dare say that this would be one of the short commings of LIFT, in that many usability issues can not be determined by code alone, but more in the way that the user interacts with the site.

[redux]

Originally posted by raboo
I'm going to wait for the next upgrade, with hopefully a more intelligent usability checker.

again, don't confuse usability with accessibility...