The Web – Access and Inclusion for Disabled People.
Introduction
The Pollen Shop offers the following comments as a response to The Web Access and Inclusion for Disabled People report released 14 April 2004 by the Disability Rights Commission.
The Pollen Shop is a small inclusive communication company that works across the voluntary, public and business sectors. We have considerable expertise of developing accessible websites that conform to the WCAG “Triple-A” standard.
A number of clients, colleagues and other people who work with us in creating an inclusive digital age have suggested that we respond formally to the report. Although this response is solely the work of the Pollen Shop we believe that it may broadly indicate the views of smaller development teams or those developing sites within small to medium sized voluntary sector organisations.
Overall
The Pollen Shop welcomes the report. As a company we are naturally supportive of any initiative that highlights accessibility within the web. We believe however that this report marks a significant development in making the UK’s new media environment truly accessible.
We would like to commend the DRC for producing a report of this quality and would encourage the DRC to continue with this area of work.
We wish to make a number of comments on the report.
Research
The relatively low numbers of developers responding to the survey may have distorted some of the results. Although this does not directly alter the validity of the recommendations, which for the most part we believe are sound, we believe, that they should not be seem as indicative of the new media industry as a whole or developers in general. This is important as the report will have some influence on the best tactics to be used to make web designers create accessible websites.
Over the last 12 months we have noted as a company that web developers who have recently left academia who contact us looking for work have a reasonable understanding of how to develop accessible websites. The issue is that these skills have not been formally developed or appropriately used.
The significant issue for us is how this knowledge and willingness to create accessible websites is harnessed by the new media industry. We recognise that training is key but only part of the solution.
A roadblock to achieving access is often new media companies and departmental managers who persist in continuing the myth that website accessibility is not achievable. The only way we believe this will alter is when the industry is forced through legal, commercial or public funding sanction to take access seriously.
Recommendations
In general we agree with the recommendations within the report.
We find the following recommendations particularly positive:
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Organisations which provide and oversee education and training for developers,
including the vendors of web-authoring tools, should promote an understanding
that good development practice entails attending, and responding, to the
needs of disabled people.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Point 1
As a minimum, the Government should promote a formal accreditation process
for website developers, and thereafter a register of accredited website
developers who have been appropriately trained and who abide by the guidance
We also noted that the report highlighted correctly that
- The repeated emphasis that an automated testing tool is not sufficient to guarantee accessibility.
- That accessibility is as much the responsibility of the developers of Operating Systems and Browser technology as it is of designers and commissioners.
We are, however, very concerned by areas of the report that suggest Guidelines,
and accreditation for websites, other than the WAI WCAG, are needed.
Specifically we wish to identify recommendation 8 point 4
- Promote a certification scheme, comprising an accessibility kite mark, for website commissioners who may wish to demonstrate that their website has been developed and maintained in accordance with the guidance.
The Pollen Shop strongly believes that there is a danger of fragmentation as different bodies and organisations seek to develop their own quality assurances schemes. This situation already exists in the UK where a number of different access “badges” are used. These are confusing for the website user and developer.
Websites are not restricted by geographical boundaries. We believe that a single set of international guidelines is needed and that separate guidelines, whether endorsed by an organisation or government, will not help create universal accessibility.
A government certification scheme may hinder the development of the UK accessible technology sector. It may also discourage companies operating in other parts of the world from investing in, or developing, accessible services and products for the UK market.
It should be noted that a number of Guidelines and certification schemes that have been developed do not fully embrace a pan disability approach.
We believe the Government should be encouraged to support the WAI WCAG as the accepted standard.
If there are areas where the WCAG fall short we, as an industry, should petition the W3C to update the Guidelines rather than seek to form new guidelines or certification.
Conclusion
Although we have identified a small number of areas of concern within the
report we would like to stress that The Pollen Shop’s response to
The Web – Access and Inclusion for Disabled People is overwhelmingly
positive.
