How To Sell Accessibility

[ArticleBot]

This is a dedicated thread for discussing the SitePoint article 'How To Sell Accessibility'

[Matt_Machell]

Good article, though perhaps a little UK-centric. Not that I mind, but the stats are different in other countries, and you want to be arguing business case on stats that the client will care about.

-Matt

[duuudie]

very interesting article. I didn't know about the Maguire vs. SOCOG issue. I definitly understand why accessibility is an important question now. It's building a building. When building it, think that everyone might want to enter your building and give the opportunity to do so. I am not sure about the UK-centric side of the article. Accessibility is pretty much universal, even tho Trenton Moss examples are 'Uk related', so to speak.

Great links as well.

[trenton]

Hi guys

Thanks for the comments. As a Brit, yes, the article is very UK-centred although I would guess that the stats are probably similar (in terms of %'s) around the developed world. I don't really know non-UK stats but if you do want to find some info about your own countries then two great places to start are:

http://www.uiaccess.com/access_links.html
http://www.accessiblenet.org/

Hope that helps!

[duuudie]

Hi trenton

May I ask how you came to make accessibility your main focus? I think it is a great field of work.

[vgarcia]

I have to take slight issue with the "accessibility = usability" bit, and the "accessibility = faster downloads" bit. In my experience, the accessible portions of my code (tabindex, accesskey, etc.) can actually add to the weight of the page (I will concede though, that it's a very small percentage of total page weight). Also, an accessible site doesn't mean your site is the pinnacle of usability. It lays the groundwork for a usable site, but like accessibility, usability is something that has to be actively considered and applied in all aspects of design.

[trenton]

To answer your question, duuudie, I first got into usability and then expanded into accessibility too.

As for what you have to say, vgarcia, what you're saying is basically right. Accessibility is not the same as usability and there are many accessible websites that are really hard to use. There is quite a lot of overlap though. For example, the following accessibility aspects all have usability benefits:

• Making link text descriptive (makes scanning the page easier)

• Use CSS for layout (quicker download time than tables)

• Assign prompt text to its input type (makes clicking on checkboxes and radioboxes easier - for an example go to hotmail.com and click on the text next to the checkbox)

• Explain acronyms (users may not know what they mean)

• Accesskeys (quick navigation if you use a site a lot)

• ALT description (good for users on a slow connection who turn images off)

• Site map provided (good if you're lost)

• Simple and easy lannguage (easier to read the page content)

• Consistent navigation (website easier to navigate)

• No unannounced pop-ups (definitely beneficial)

Of course, you can't say that accessible web pages download faster per se than non-accessible ones. And yes, accessible sites do need some extra code, but they should also:

- have cleaner code (no font or table tags)
- use CSS for layout
- avoid using images to display text

I'd say that because of this they usually do download quicker.

[duuudie]

Originally Posted by trenton

To answer your question, duuudie, I got into usability and expanded into accessibility too.

thanks for answering

[Octal]

Whilst this article is well written and informative I don't think accessibility needs to be actively considered unless you are hired to rework an existing site.

If you build a site correctly in the first place, ie to standards then accessibility comes as a bonus or side effect.
See also Jeffery Veen: I don't care about accessibility

[vgarcia]

Originally Posted by Octal

Whilst this article is well written and informative I don't think accessibility needs to be actively considered unless you are hired to rework an existing site.

I've seen some messy standards-compliant sites. Just because it has the XHTML Transitional DOCTYPE and/or button doesn't mean it's going to take little work to make it accessible. True, it takes less work than a tables-and-font-tags site, but it can still be quite a bit of work if the standards-compliant markup wasn't written semantically in the first place.

[Octal]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A standards compliant site is not and should not contain solely a transistional doctype and/or a button.

Besides which I didn't say it would take "little work" I said accessibility should not be an issue if the site is built correctly in the first place or as you put it; "semantically" correct.

[Si]

We're in the process (at work) of redesigning the public website and I keep pushing these "buzz" words accessibility and usability to my lesser-educated colleagues. It's taken me a while to talk them around to CSS design rather than tables...

Anyway, we work for a government organization and it is very important that we cater for all types of users. It is naive to ignore those with disabilities when developing a website for the general public, especially those that aren't interested in pretty looking websites. We're basing the design around content and structure rather than gimicks...

[xhtmlcoder]

Well, it is written in the UK DDA that Government sites are meant to clean up their act regarding Accessibility.

[trenton]

bigsi, here's the requirements for UK government websites: http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/Resources/WebGuidelines/fs/en

[Si]

Thanks trenton... I've forwarded the material to all my colleagues as proof! That should make them realise

[min8]

Hi,

Came across this thread which interests me. You see, I am pretty new to web design but recently have been reading up and learning more on accessibility specifically.

Now, accessibility seems all the rage today - but not surprising, as i think it is vital for websites today to be much more accessible.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I am starting to hate sites which have tonnes of bloated, junk mark-up - even sites built using table layouts and hacks. (That of course means the majority of sites on the web!).

I am constantly seeing sites that still use font tags and the most detailed table layout ever!... i think sites should be cleaned up more and be made much more accessible.

just my opinion.