Should Businesses Be Afraid Of The DDA?

[MrC]

Like domokun says, SEO usually suffers the more flashy (in both senses) a site gets.

In general terms the closer the site to standard HTML the better for both useability and SEO.

[domokun]

Amen to that MrC

;D

[PatrickH]

Not afraid, aware. Current authoring tools (Dreamweaver, Front page) will handle a great deal of the compliance issues if you use the standard (XHTML and CSS).
There are also FREE compliance checkers on the Web to help.
regards
Patrick

[fisicx]

Not so Patrick,

All WYSIWYG applications will produce non-compliant code. It may validate but it will not meet the accessibility guidelines.

Examples being: tables, layers, frames, colours, fixed sized fonts, javascript managed menus and so on.

[PatrickH]

CSS and positioning can replace tables in many cases. css and colours can replace use of the (deprecated) font color tags. css can be used on tables. Why used fixed-size fonts? Use relative measures (% and em).
Javascript should be used with noscript tags.

Sites can be compliant, interactive and designed with WISIWIG tools. If you design your site with accessibility in mind. Even tables, using caption and header tags can be compliant.

Have a Google on 'Dive into accessibity'. I can also recommend 'Web Standard Solution' by Dan Cederholm (www.friendsofed.com)

[fisicx]

Agree.

I should have made it clearer that WYSUWYG applications often produce non-compliant code. HTML styles being the most obvious.

And using tables (no matter how well formatted) for structure will always fail from an accessibiliy point of view. Try using a screen reader to experience the problem.

[squalid]

sorry for dragging up an old post..

I have just come across PAS78, bit late as it was published in March.


PAS 78 is - "Publically Available Specification 78" and was sponsored by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and published by the British Standards Institute (BSI)

They state in part 9.1.1

"It is not possible to provide a definitive specification for a fully accessible website which will satisfy the requirements of the DDA. Website commissioners should therefore be sceptical if contracting companies declare that they will create websites that are "DDA-compliant" or "compliant with the law"

That is quite self explanatory.

You can get your copy of it from

http://www.drc.org.uk/library/websit...ce/pas_78.aspx

Reading the whole thing it seemed like a wish list for the DRC. It is certainly not law, just how the DRC wants things.

So once you do a website - say a simple static one maybe - they would have you get all different people with different disabilities to test the site.

Being a cynic, I think they would love this cause it would give unlimited employment opportunities to all disabled people. (job = testing websites)

The DDA today only says that companies should make an effort to ensure access, (i think, please correct if wrong) so I wouldnt see any reason to rush and restrict all internet businesses to some outlandish compliance.

I think there may end up being some sort of accreditation for websites in years to come - rather like the kitemark for industry. I dont think it will be enforced cause of the restrictions it would place on businesses.

But, if they did ever enforce it -

At the public consultation stage I would put my tuppence in saying it would be restrictive etc, as I am sure many many would.

Once law, I would welcome it as it would get rid of alot of the 'bedroom' designers in the business.

[PatrickH]

Originally Posted by squalid

Reading the whole thing it seemed like a wish list for the DRC. It is certainly not law, just how the DRC wants things.

It is reasonable for the DRC to set out their optimal requirements.

Originally Posted by squalid

Being a cynic, I think they would love this cause it would give unlimited employment opportunities to all disabled people. (job = testing websites)

One does not have to be disabled to test a site - all web designers can do it and many users can also. i think the reason they would welcome compliance is because it would enable people with disabilities to use the internet. And since there are more and more services (government, local authority, education, entertainment, reference works, news, ...) on the Web this is more and more important.

Originally Posted by squalid

The DDA today only says that companies should make an effort to ensure access, (i think, please correct if wrong) so I wouldnt see any reason to rush and restrict all internet businesses to some outlandish compliance.

Of course, not some outlandish compliance. But reasonable effort at compliance is required - and ignoring reasonable requirement can leave a site open to action.

[squalid]

they suggest that "website commissioners may contract a recruitment agency to recruit users who exactley match the required criteria" to evulate a site.

users critera -

vision impairment

mobility

cognitive learning

deaf and hard of hearing

along with another critera for determining success

you are right when you say that one does not have to be disable to test a site. But the DRC doesnt seem to see it that way.