Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web Accessibility?

Posted by Cliff on from the 508--ain't-it-great dept.

conJunk asks: "With Slashdot recently becoming HTML 4.01 compliant, my thoughts now drift to the subject of web accessibility. We all know that the Section 508 requirements are legally binding to those who work for or with the U.S. government, but it's still unclear whether or not U.S. companies are required to have accessible sites (unlike England, where it's very clear). How important are web accessibility and the W3C Accessibility Guidelines to you and/or your company? Where do you see this issue going in the next 10 years?"

5 of 21 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps not too important ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How important are web accessibility and the W3C Accessibility Guidelines to you and/or your company?

    While this wasn't posted to the front page of /., my guess is that since there are ZERO comments after 15 minutes at Ask Slashdot that it is just not that important to many folks.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  2. Realistically speaking... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Realistically speaking there is a ton of work the major browser players need to do in order to advance the cause of accessibility. Mozilla and IE especially are horrid when it comes to representing metadata to disabled persons.

    Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.

    The biggest problem (as of today) probably lies in the content creation tools. Yeah, I know, the best sites should be coded by hand (which I do), but the majority of websites are maintained and created by tools that don't give a rip about accessibility (in any realistic way). Dreamweaver, Frontpage, et al really need to start stepping up in terms of accessibility.

    Finally, educating those who actually do content management about the needs of the disabled is essential. Since it's a pain in the ass to make a site easily accessible by disabled persons, you need to care about the cause to put the time in to do it right.

    1. Re:Realistically speaking... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      But a screen reader isn't the same thing as an aural user agent. A screen reader is an attempt to convey visible information via sound, whereas an aural user agent reads what is available. It's kinda like the difference between closed captioning and subtitles. One just represents who said what, and the other represents that plus environmental sounds that are pertinent to the reader.

    2. Re:Realistically speaking... by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.

      Already done. Right now, only Opera and Emacspeak have even the slightest clue about aural CSS, but it's been sitting there ready to be implemented for years. JAWS etc haven't a clue about W3C specifications though.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  3. Re:Slashdot is not w3c compliant SEE BELOW by Kawahee · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rather than spam us with this, please read the post the /. team made regarding this. They said they weren't fully W3C compliant yet, but they would be fixing it in the next couple of days. Mkay? Mkay.

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.