IT Accessibility Review
Volume 1, Number 8
Around the IT/Web Accessible World
The UK´s Top 100 Companies: How Compliant are their Websites?
London (PRWEB)-- [SiteMorse Technologies Limited] Over the last year the focus on ensuring that websites are accessible to all has been continually publicized, and by many service providers been seen as their lead sales message. This follows the report late last year from the Disabilities Rights Commission slamming so many sites for having poor levels of compliance. SiteMorse has been reporting on the state of individual sites for over two years now and has seen significant improvements by some-- but top names are still nowhere near good enough.
Overview of Findings
Top of the league and best site overall was the Daily Mail General Trust (www.dmgt.co.uk). At the bottom of the table, was Diageo (www.diageo.com). The Daily Mail General Trust was also the only site to score 100% for both A / AA accessibility.
Accessibility Compliance
Results of automated testing against the mandatory requirements of Priority 1 (A) Accessibility: 9 sites scored 100%, 42 sites scored 90%+ and 9 sites achieved a score of less than 1%.
No one at SiteMorse is saying that automated tests are the Holy Grail, simply if you cannot pass the automated tests and for instance, have basic descriptions missing on images, how can you hope to achieve compliance-- regardless of testing methods, manual or automated?
HTML Operating Code Quality (required for browser compatibility)
The site with the lowest number of warnings [HTML standards compliance within the requirements laid down by W3C and IETF] was the Daily Mail General Trust (www.dmgt.co.uk) with 1. Diageo (www.diageo.com) had the poorest HTML with over 105,000 failures.
Site Errors
Only one site was error free, LloydsTSB; and for the first time, mail problems have featured in the list of top 10 errors.
Website Performance
30 sites passed all basic speed tests, looking at first page download and simulated as being viewed by users home [56k] and ADSL [512k] access.
The site with the fastest response time was Barclays (www.barclays.co.uk); British American Tobacco (www.bat.com) had the slowest response time, and was 103 times slower than Barclays.
The site with the fastest download speed was Man Group (www.mangroupplc.com); British American Tobacco (www.bat.com) again had the slowest download speed and was 189 times slower than Man.
SiteMorse offers some basic pointers for those looking to deliver well performing, functioning and compliant websites:
- Ensure that content editors understand the reasons why sites needs to be accessible
- Do not allow CMS systems to accept images unless tagged
- Build in basic page reviews
- Remember that automated tools assist, but they are not the complete answer
- You must ensure you have pre-release quality assurance procedures in place that test all web templates in both live and off line environment
- And when contracting for services, state specific standards to be achieved (not specifically product based Bobby / SiteMorse) WAI-WCAG P1, etc.
SiteMorse also stresses that if a site scores 100% in its automated tests, then this indicates that it has not failed the automated tests; however, manual testing is also needed to achieve compliance. It seems that many of the organizations highlighted here by SiteMorse have some work to do.
The range of tests [Web Accessibility Initiative WAI] that can be completed automatically are limited, 100% compliance with the automated tests does not mean 100% compliance with the requirements.
Source:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/7/emw262267.htm
The Problem with Automated Accessibility Testing Tools
An automated accessibility tool is a piece of software which can test a web page, or even an entire website, for accessibility. Automated accessibility tools are useful because they can save you a huge amount of time. Don´t want to check images for alt text on each and every page on your website? Run the site through an automated tester and it´ll do it all for you!
Automated accessibility testing tools have been around for a long time and have historically been a useful way of checking websites for accessibility. Bobby, one of the first and most well-known automated accessibility testing tools, is now almost 10 years old, and although it is no longer freely available, plenty of other free tools such as WebXACT and WAVE do exist.
But are these tools a little too good to be true? Can you test a website for accessibility so easily? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding no. There are a number of underlying problems associated with using just automated tools to test for accessibility:
Literal Interpretation of Guidelines
Any automated accessibility testing tool, being a piece of software, doesn´t have very much in the way of common sense. It will interpret each and every accessibility guideline literally, without bearing any other thought to what else is on the page.
The definition of the word guideline, according to Dictionary.com, is "a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behaviour". A guideline simply offers guidance to what the best practice is-- it shouldn´t just be applied without regard to other factors.
For example, one of the W3C accessibility guidelines states that a table summary should be provided for all tables. (This summary doesn´t appear on the screen, but it´s read aloud to screen reader users before reading through the table content.) Table summaries are useful as they tell screen reader users what to expect in the table. However, there may be a heading directly before the table and it describes what the table is about. In this instance, this summary is essentially useless as it will just repeat what the previous heading said.
Can´t Check Any Content Issues
The way that content is structured both on the page and across the website is a massive part of accessibility. A website may be perfectly coded and conform to the highest coding standards, but if its content is poorly structured though, the site will prove difficult to impossible for some special needs web users.
There are a number of important accessible content considerations, none of which automated accessibility testing tools can check for. Some of these important considerations include:
- Front-loading content so that each paragraph begins with the conclusion
- Ensuring content has been broken down into manageable chunks with descriptive sub-headings
- Using lists wherever appropriate
Can´t Check Many Coding Issues
The vast number of accessibility guidelines tend to be related to how the site is coded. Automated accessibility testing tools are unfortunately unable to test for many of these too. Examples of HTML-related accessibility considerations which these tools can´t check for include:
- Ensuring that text is real text and isn´t embedded within images
- Making sure that the site functions without the use of JavaScript or Flash
- Providing equivalent text links if using server-side image maps
- Ensuring that the structure within the HTML reflects the visual appearance (e.g., headings are labelled as headings within the HTML code)
Outdated Guidelines are Used
Automated accessibility testing tools generally use the W3C accessibility guidelines, which by now are over five years old. As such, a number of these guidelines are outdated and don´t apply anymore. In fact, some of them are now thought to hinder accessibility rather than help, so it´s best to totally ignore these guidelines.
For example, an automated accessibility testing tool will probably insist that form items contain default place holding text. It may also insist that links need to be separated by non-link text. Neither of these guidelines are relevant anymore and their implementation could make accessibility worse rather than better.
Most Guidelines Aren´t Properly Checked
Automated accessibility tools can check for a number of guidelines, and can tell you when a guideline isn´t being adhered to. However, when the tool claims that a guideline is being fulfilled this may in fact be a false truth.
For example, if all images contain alt text then the software will report a pass for this guideline. But what if the alt text isn´t descriptive of its image? What if alt text is crammed full of nonsensical keywords for search engines? How can an automated accessibility tool possibly know this?
Warnings May be Misinterpreted
The reports generated by automated accessibility tools provide warnings, as well as errors. These warnings are basically guidelines that the automated tool can´t check for, but which may be errors. Often they´re not, and in fact they´re often not even relevant. However, some people reading a report may try to get rid of these warning messages by making the appropriate changes to their site. By doing so, they may be implementing guidelines that needn´t be implemented and inadvertently lowering the website´s accessibility.
Conclusion
Automated accessibility testing tools can be useful as they can save a large amount of time in performing some very basic checks for accessibility. However, they must be used with caution and they cannot be used as a stand-alone guide for accessibility checking. Indeed, some expert accessibility knowledge should always be applied in evaluating a site accessibility, perhaps in conjunction with the fantastic web accessibility toolbar to help dramatically speed up manual checks.
Source:
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/automated-tools.shtml
Accessibility Could Take a Step Backward
The Internet has no country borders-- neither should the information technology that enables it to be accessible to all people. At a time when travel and currency barriers continue to fall in Europe, several countries want to create new boundaries related to the Web. These nations want to establish a label or mark that would specify Web pages or products that are "accessible" to people with disabilities. However, such standards could differ from existing U.S. standards.
The reality is that if you are blind and use a "screen reader" to read Internet content out loud as you surf the Web, the product should be able to read sites from the U.S. government as easily as it reads ones posted by the government of Sweden. Agreement among governments on their policies for accessibility would accomplish this goal.
Accessibility is in everyone´s interest.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 750 million and 1 billion of the world´s 6 billion people have a speech, vision, mobility, hearing, or cognitive impairment.
In the U.S. alone, more than 54 million people have disabilities. The numbers are increasing as 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 get older. In other developed countries, including Italy, Spain, and Japan, 45 percent of the population will be over the age of 60 by the year 2040, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
People are living longer, and although health care is continually improving, it´s almost impossible to eliminate the incidence of disabilities acquired as part of the normal aging process.
Powerful demographic and social trends are fueling the need for information technology accessibility worldwide, but we are at a point where individual governments may fragment their efforts.
The U.S. marked a milestone in IT accessibility in 1998, when it amended Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 requires all information technology purchased by the federal government to be accessible. Federal government Web sites and Web-based activity must be accessible as well. The law, coupled with its amendment and its technical specifications, has had global reach as many countries around the world look to Section 508 as a blueprint for their own Web accessibility guidelines.
Since Section 508 took effect, the entire tech industry has invested significant technical and human resources in bringing products and services into compliance, in many cases, by incorporating accessibility requirements in the concept phase of product development.
Now the technology industry is concerned that the positive impact of Section 508 may be disrupted or side-tracked: Several governments in Europe are in the process of exploring or establishing their own accessibility policies. Some are similar to the U.S. standard, but others offer new, divergent, or conflicting accessibility guidelines for public procurement.
The technology sector wants the U.S. government to convey to the European Commission the importance of creating policy that removes existing barriers-- and does not create new barriers to accessibility. In addition, we have major concerns about the European Commission´s consideration of enforcement based upon labeling and certification of products as "accessible."
Even when people have similar disabilities, every individual is different. Given the enormous range of functional limitations that exist, even within a single disability or impairment type, it would be nearly impossible to create a label or mark that could provide sufficient information to buyers regarding a product´s conformance with evolving accessibility standards. In fact, labeling products as "accessible" could set false expectations for consumers.
Making technology accessible to all is best met by technologies and solutions that are committed to interoperability based upon open standards and have been developed via collaborative processes.
Without a harmonized approach to procuring information technology, each government could adopt a different technical standard. If various governments mandate different regional or country technical requirements, industry will be forced to focus on multiple compliance efforts, rather than pushing beyond compliance and investing in new technology and solutions. Most likely, some companies would choose not to invest in some markets, and the people who need the technology most will lose out on its benefits.
However, if European technical specifications for accessibility are in harmony with global standards, it would enlarge the market of conforming IT products and would create an even greater incentive for manufacturers to compete globally on the basis of accessibility.
Industry has made much progress, but there is more to do. Given the broad implications that accessibility has on society in general, industry wants to move beyond mere compliance and bring innovative solutions to the marketplace. Agreeing on global standards will enable society to derive benefits from more involved citizens, more contributing workers, and more enabled workers.
Biography:
Frances W. West directs IBM´s Worldwide Accessibility Center.
Source:
http://news.com.com/Accessibility+could+take+a+step+backward/2010-1071_3-5794513.html
Grants Aid Computer Scientist in Drive to Help Color-Blind
A University of East Anglia Computer Science researcher is developing technology that makes websites more accessible to those with color blindness. One in 12 of the male population is color blind, yet many websites use color combinations that make it very difficult for color blind people to see and understand.
Color blindness is the reduced ability to distinguish between certain colors. It´s usually inherited and is more common in men. Types vary and although vision itself isn´t affected, the ability to distinguish between certain colors is.
While studying full-time for his PhD, Jefferson won an Enterprise Development Award worth £10,000 from university-to-business experts i10, a partnership of 10 top Universities and Higher Education Colleges in the East of England, which enabled him to take a break from his studies to push this idea forward and evaluate its commercial potential.
He is now developing software that can be used as a plug-in to a color blind person´s computer to adjust the colors according to their type of color blindness. He is also looking to develop accessibility tools for designers to help them choose color combinations that are user-friendly for color blind people.
Jefferson is currently looking for those with color blindness and or those with specialist knowledge of the condition to partake in further studies so that he can take the concept to and beyond the prototype stage, and ensure that it meets the particular and often individual needs, of end-users.
The i10 universities are Anglia Polytechnic University, University of Cambridge, Cranfield University, University of East Anglia, University of Essex, University of Hertfordshire, University of Luton, Norwich School of Art and Design, Open University in the East of England, Writtle College. i10 is a government-funded project which allows universities in the East of England to leverage their knowledge and expertise to provide business support in the region.
Source:
URL:
http://www.eetuk.com/tech/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170000076
Korea, China, Japan Meet for Standardization of Daily Goods
A symposium for the standardization of daily goods and supplies for the elderly and the physically challenged was launched on Thursday (April 28) at the Korea Technology Center (KTC), jointly hosted by the KTC and the Korean Standards Association (KSA), to exchange information and promote cooperation among experts from Korea, China, and Japan.
Topics of discussion include ways of bringing forth a "barrier-free society" where there are no obstacles or barriers causing inconvenience to the elderly and the disabled, universal standardization of daily goods and supplies, including electronic products and medical appliances and its adoption to manufacturing.
At the meeting, Park Tae-wook from the KTC presented Korea´s standardization of the welfare system for the elderly and the physically challenged and Makoto Yokota from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan introduced inter-relationships in universal design among all sectors of Japanese society and Japan´s policy for standardization.
The KTC, an affiliate with the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, plans to set up a safety standard for a bedsore-preventing mattress that is currently in high demand by the elderly, continuing to standardize stair inclination and height and dimension of cabinets for the convenient daily life of those in need of assistance.
In consideration for the often-estranged group in society, KSA revealed last January eight Korean standards on design of daily products to raise their utility and convenience.
"The outcome of the symposium will be reflected in developing an overall plan for welfare standardization for elderly or disabled people, trying to make Korea´s standards adopted as international standards," a KSA official said.
Source:
http://korea.be/content/view/410/153/
