Slashdot Mirror
Federally enforced HTML compliance
gmezero writes "Well, well, well, it looks like we might finally start seeing an end to the craptacular websites that can only be viewed with "Web Browser v9.5 beta 3". Acording to an article on ZDNet, the Fed will begin forcing all federal sites and those of companies doing business with the government to be handicapped friendly. Gee maybe now we can finally seperate the "real" HTML coders from the (insert ANY page builder tool name here) loosers! " Interesting idea-it seems heavy-handed, but the article itself does a good job of explaining why this would be a good thing.
As a hearing person who works in the Deaf community, I have a significant interest in this topic. A gross misconception need to be cleared up:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HTML COMPLIANCE.
Whoever wrote the headline (hemos?) didn't read the article carefully.
I haven't a clue what the federal standards for web accessibility for the disabled will be. A good model, though, is the W3's Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI/). If anything, the federal standards will probably be less restrictive than the W3.
It's important to note that making web pages accessible DOES NOT REQUIRE STANDARD HTML. You can meet the W3's WAI standards with Front Page98, NetObjects Fusion, or whatever . . . and you can hand-code the worst, most inaccessible pages with thoroughly compliant HTML 4.0.
Nor is this about the federal government mandating how private corporations or individuals web pages must be designed. The upcoming federal standards are about making web pages OF FEDERAL AGENCIES that comply with standards of accessibility for people with disabilities, NOT about making web pages that comply with HTML 3.2 or 4.0 standards.
Making web pages accessible is generally extremely simple if you start with accessibility in mind. It can be more difficult to go back and "retrofit" existing web sites for accessibility, depending on their complexity.
The article also says that "firms doing business with government agencies" will have to comply with the standards, though I suspect that the phrase "doing business" is an example of crappy journalism. Typically, the government only extends that kind of regulatory weight to firms that CONTRACT with the Federal government -- which is a different thing than "doing business" with the Federal government. The government might buy computers from Vendor X (i.e. "do business"), but Vendor X is not necessarily a Federal contractor.
I would definitely want to see more information about the implementation of these proposed federal standards before I believed that they could apply to everyone who "does business" with the government.