W3C accessibility guidelines - are they for real?

[jonra01]

JWJ posted a link to silktide.com (very nice site, btw) that lead me to the w3c accessibility guidelines. I've been aware of these for a long time and usually try to make a site that will be somewhat usable for most users. The only thing wrong with that is that some people still can't use certain aspects of a site other than straight text. This may seem like it doesn't apply to most of us, but if JWJ starts selling his paintings online he would have a commercial site and be subject to The British Disability Discrimination Act.

After reading (skimming) the guidelines I've come to the conclusion that they've gone too far this time. They even tell you how to write in these "guidelines".

14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.

1. Strive for clear and accurate headings and link descriptions. This includes using link phrases that are terse and that make sense when read out of context or as part of a series of links (Some users browse by jumping from link to link and listening only to link text.) Use informative headings so that users can scan a page quickly for information rather than reading it in detail.
2. State the topic of the sentence or paragraph at the beginning of the sentence or paragraph (this is called "front-loading"). This will help both people who are skimming visually, but also people who use speech synthesizers. "Skimming" with speech currently means that the user jumps from heading to heading, or paragraph to paragraph and listens to just enough words to determine whether the current chunk of information (heading, paragraph, link, etc.) interests them. If the main idea of the paragraph is in the middle or at the end, speech users may have to listen to most of the document before finding what they want. Depending on what the user is looking for and how much they know about the topic, search features may also help users locate content more quickly.
3. Limit each paragraph to one main idea.
4. Avoid slang, jargon, and specialized meanings of familiar words, unless defined within your document.
5. Favor words that are commonly used. For example, use "begin" rather than "commence" or use "try" rather than "endeavor."
6. Use active rather than passive verbs.
7. Avoid complex sentence structures.

In item 4 of 14.1 they tell you to avoid slang and in item 5 they tell you to favor words that are commonly used. What is slang if it's not common usage?

Then there is this section

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

Does this mean that I need to provide a detailed description of every photo on my, primarily, graphical site?

I ran my site through the silktide test and then checked the errors that it showed for w3c accessibility. The main complaint was for a lack of a home link on the pages. I don't use a home link, because there are no links on the home page that aren't available on every other page.

I'm not too impressed with the silktide test. It only found 5 pages on my site. It also complained about no forms when I have a form on my contact page.

Enough ranting, for now.

John

[webado]

Silktide runs the site through nothing more nor less than the actual w3c validator. All the errors that it "finds" come right from there.

It doesn't go to all the pages I think in any case, not without signing up.

Which may explain why it didn't find the contact form - it wasn't in the first 4 or 5 links I think it checks.

For one of my sites it complains of redirection - hah! That's the script you gave me to put in to break out of a frame. Why exactly did it bother it? Did it check my site in a frame?

Then it perennially complains about anything and everything to do with tables. They have height and they shouldn't have height. They have or they don't have <tr> but theyshouldn't have <tr> .......

Anything in an <embed> tag it complains about - not the tag, just the contents: src, height, width, etc.

The whole thing about the British Disability Act - well, mine is a site with audio visual content. Sorry if blind or deaf visitors cannot relate. It's not for them, that's all. Just like radio is not for the deaf and an art gallery is not for the blind and mountain climbing is not for the paraplegics.

A web site is not a shopping mall or an office building which must be adapted to all possible users.

That nonsense about using common words and not using slang. Are they now the guardians of good language and style? Interesting that they are not giving guidelines about content - what is and what isn't appropriate or in good taste or even legal. Oh, shucks! A computer can't very well judge that - not even with AI. But I guess it can find words that are above a grade III level - and nix them.

[JWJ]

I agree that W3C has gone a step too far. I don't disagree that some standards are needed and to have guidelines to help us achieve better levels of accessibility is very worthwhile. However, with the existing 'rules' I believe most sites, no matter how technically capable the webmaster might be, will fail to some extent. In my case, simply using FrontPage means I have to accept certain 'error's, and although I can make allowances for that there is a great tendency to not even try to reduce the error count to a minimum level. If full W3C compliance was more achievable I would make more effort to comply - as it is I accept I can't comply even before I begin to design a new page.

As far as Silktide is concerned, I don't pay too much attention to it's partial and spurious results however I do find it interesting to run it from time to time just to see if I'm moving in the right direction.

[faze3]

I'm glad the general consensus is that the guidelines have become ridiculous - I was getting the feeling that I was getting left behind with this compliance lark.
Using Serif PagePlus for my site, the only way I could mess with the coding is by publishing to file, jiggling with it in notebook and then uploading. Just not on. That's just not the way it was meant to be used and I'm forever publishing one page or another with a slight tweak here or there.
I believe one of the few ways that we can all help is by checking the site colours are ok for those with colour blindness. Apart from that, as Chris said, if you've got no legs, don't climb mountains.
I've currently got a thread going on the Serif site about W3C compliance. The first answer I got was why exactly did I want to be compliant. When I gave my reply as being to do with possible current and future problems of using the various browsers I was quite surprised at the reply:-
"Of course, not all browsers are W3C compliant - IE6 is one of them!"
Nuff said, I think I'll stop worrying.
Alan.

[motorwatchercounter]

My history, and opinion, with these people is known on the forum. It doesn't mean I am right.

I am sure I am.

Just to make sure, search the other threads. Some people like them and they are people with knowledge.

I am, just me.

why use notebook there are tons (or metric tonnes) of free editors out there.

Edit later
Look here:
http://www.snapfiles.com/freeware/we...fweditors.html
I like allycode. I also have Dreamweaver and Flash which I paid for.

[faze3]

Notebook was stated only as a sample. The mere fact that any editor has to be used was my point.
Alan.

[trackerm]

2. State the topic of the sentence or paragraph at the beginning of the sentence or paragraph (this is called "front-loading").

Its a load of Canadian Polar Bear doings when they start telling you how to write your own content.

Although I should point out to John (JWJ) that your poetry should have the Subject first or your poem will NOT be w3c compliant!!!

I refuse to read non-compliant poetry!!!!!

I want to see compliance on your art work too! All brush strokes Left to Right… NOT Up and Down!!!

[webado]

Of course, all artwork accompanied by an alt tag descriving it in detail, as well as a title tag for the rogue browsers who, while dictating what w3c should not endorse from IE, take turns at not respecting this or that guideline.

[JWJ]

Originally Posted by trackerm

Although I should point out to John (JWJ) that your poetry should have the Subject first or your poem will NOT be w3c compliant!!!

I refuse to read non-compliant poetry!!!!!

I want to see compliance on your art work too! All brush strokes Left to Right… NOT Up and Down!!!

LOL .... Oh don't, I have enough trouble as it is.

[webado]

Oh, and for compliance with the UK Disability Act all greens and reds have to be replaced with their negative counterparts.

All graphics should be limited to the primary colors.