Good question.

Answer: Probably not.

An article from the National Center on Disabilities and Access to Education (NCDAE) reports that a significant majority of higher education web sites failed to meet Section 508 standards.

They state:

The results were surprising. Of the 100-page sample, 97% contained accessibility errors. If this sample is indicative of web content broadly found in higher education, it may signal a decrease in accessibility over previous reports. Data were also analyzed for types of accessibility problems.

Here are a few highlights:

• Of the 97 pages that contained repetitive navigation, 85 pages (88%) had missing or broken skip-to-content links. This was the most commonly violated checkpoint.
• Of the 76 pages that had form elements, 63 pages (83%) had at least one element with a missing or incorrectly associated label. From this sample, the vast majority of the pages had only one form element: the search box.
• Each of the 100 pages that were evaluated had at least one image. From the sample, 71% had at least one image with missing or inappropriate alternative text.

04/29/08 | Posted by admin | Category Accessibility

No comments | Permalink |

I found this in Dan Jellinek's E-Access Newsletter for April 2008. It describes the five most common web accessibility problems from the perspective of a blind user. Very informative.

BTW, I have been publishing a series of articles regarding accessibility on the Maine CITE Accessible Web Design site and just so happened to do one recently on this same topic. Check that out too since I provide resources for how to find and fix the issues mentioned here.

+10: The Power of Five.

The local government Society of IT Management (Socitm) this week published a report on website accessibility which included a round-up of the five most common accessibility errors.

The society estimates that these five errors account for 76% of all website accessibility failures, and it asked Robin Christopherson, Head of Accessibility Services at the charity AbilityNet, to describe their impact. Robin is blind and uses the popular 'JAWS' screen reader software to access the web.

An edited version of Robin's assessment follows.

"Common failure 1 is to have no alternative text for images.

"This is an extremely common occurrence. I visit a website and am confronted with numerous unlabelled images. For mouse users this 'alternative text' is what pops up when you hover over the image. The average web page has dozens of images, from photos and adverts to 'eye-candy' such as spacing graphics and design flourishes. Many of these images are also clickable links or buttons, and not knowing what these are makes navigation impossible. Imagine trying to drive from A to B where the signposts at every roundabout or junction are blank. A disaster!

"Every single image on a website should be properly labelled. You don't need to begin captions by saying "Picture of.", as I already know it's a picture. You don't need to label 'spacer' or 'eye-candy'
images (but give these a default caption so that the page still passes the accessibility checkers) and, above all, make sure that all images that are also links or buttons describe what will happen when you click on them, e.g., alternative text as "Marilyn Monroe - click to read her life story".

"As well as revolutionising the site for blind users, labelled images will also help those with dyslexia and literacy difficulties who use text to speech software (they hover their mouse over any text or image and the content is spoken out). It will also help those with images turned off (many hand-held users do not display images) and, last but by no means least, Google loves labelled images.

"Common failure Two is the inappropriate use of JavaScript.

"JavaScript is used to write mini-programs that are embedded in web pages and can enhance their functionality. They are very widely used and set to increase dramatically with 'Web 2.0' applications.

"My screen reader (JAWS) is one of the most sophisticated, but there are still many occasions when some uses of JavaScript leave me confused or frustrated, roaming at length to discover what bit of the page (if any) has changed after clicking that link, or finding that I am totally unable to access that shopping cart as selecting that button using the keyboard does nothing at all.

"It isn't enough to offer an alternative for those not using JavaScript, thinking that disabled users do not have JavaScript switched on as a matter of course. The vast majority of users of assistive technologies (such as screen readers, voice recognition, magnification, alternative keyboards and mice) can benefit from JavaScript functions as much as anyone, with the major caveat that there are certain uses of JavaScript that are not accessible to these technologies.

"The simple solution is to test your pages with these technologies to ensure that your particular application of JavaScript is not problematic.

"Common failures 3 and 4 are errors in simple and complex data tables.

"Thankfully, these days most websites use style sheets rather than tables to style and arrange the blocks of content on a web page. Where data tables are concerned, however, it is still the case that most are not coded in such a way that the relevant headings are spoken by a screen reader when moving from cell to cell. I hear '1327' and '1727' with no idea of whether these are sales of widgets or notable dates in history.

"The solution is to make sure that all headings of columns and rows are coded using the 'th' tag instead of the 'td' tag. A screen reader will then announce these along with the contents of the cell, putting the data in context (eg "Widgets sold in June, 1327").

"And finally, common failure 5 is the use of features with a lack of accessible alternatives.

"Here you are confronted with an inaccessible bit of content or function and you search for a way around the obstacle, but to no avail.
A classic example is 'CAPTCHA'. A CAPTCHA is a type of security test used to determine whether the user is human (and so exclude automated spamming programmes). A common type of CAPTCHA requires that the user type the letters of a distorted image. Since the image is by definition unlabelled (as otherwise it can be read by malicious software) an alternative (such as an option to register by phone or email) is essential.

"When it becomes clear that you have content or function that cannot be made accessible, offer an accessible alternative. For example, the Google accounts sign-up process that uses CAPTCHA also has a link to an audio version of the code to be entered plus a link to contact customer services for those who cannot access either the visual or the auditory option.

"Always remember that an accessible site is a popular site - and not just for the disabled community. Research has shown that a site that is designed with accessibility in mind is also easier to use by all."

NOTE: 'A world denied: a supplement for Better connected 2008 on website accessibility' is available from Socitm. It is free to subscribers to the society's Insight programme; £50 for non-subscribers in the public and voluntary sectors and £99 for private sector non- subscribers.

Copyright 2008 Headstar Ltd http://www.headstar.com/eab

Editor - Dan Jellinek
Reporter: Majeed Saleh
Editorial advisor - Kevin Carey
Marketing Executive - Claire Clinton
Sales and Marketing - Jo Knell, Will Knox.

I was a little late in getting the news, and just read about it in the WebAIM newsletter that Bobby - the first of the accessibility checkers - has met his demise.

According to a report on Accessites.org, Bobby - and its current owners, Watchfire, were bought lock, stock, and web app by none other than Big Blue himself - IBM.

Frankly, I was never a big fan of Bobby. It was not so much that the application didn't work, it was the many users who though by simply putting a "Bobby Button" on their website they were "protected." I had people (potential clients) who insisted that the "Bobby Button" was all they had to do. Needless to say, 99% of the time their websites were fairly inaccessible.

Bobby, some will recall started as a free service from CAST in Massachusetts, but was eventually sold off to Watchfire when the grant funds ran out. I was a bit annoyed by the new owners who were always out to push their products. I guess I saw their actions as rather mercenary. Yeah, I know, I'm just as bad.

Anyway, Bobby is gone - at least for now.

~jeb

I read with some enthusiasm about how I should upgrade/update to the latest version of Joomla! (v1.5.1). After all it was now XHTML compliant and the best thing since sliced bread. There was even this highly detailed migration document which provided assurance that it was going to be a piece of cake.

Well not exactly.

In fairness there were several caveats which suggested the process might not go smoothly. It hasn't.

After three tries to get the old database to migrate, I have given up and will simply re-populate the site with new content. The old stuff was getting a bit dated - and frankly there wasn't much of it. I have always used this site primarily as a bit of a testing pad with lots of bells and whistles that I really didn't need (e.g., calendar, psh!).

Well the first big challenge, after the database disaster, was the template. The fact that the old template I had purchased a few years ago for the old version would not work on version 1.5. I suspect this is due to the layout now using CSS in place of Tables, but in any case, I plopped down some more money and purchased one of a few 1.5-ready templates available from Joomlashack. These are some of the nice people out in joomaland that provide some real support and generally have been helpful in the past.

So, if you are contemplating making a move to v1.5 from 1.0.x - be forwarned.

I'll keep you posted as the process continues...

~j

What will truly be a monumental task, the revision process on Section 508 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act has begun. Section 508 was first introduced into legislation in 1998 but the rules were promulgated several years later. This fact alone suggests the revision process will likely also take years.

From Section508.gov:

"Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others."

What most people don’t realize is that the majority of the Section deals with hardware and software issues; only a relatively small (though important) section deals with web accessibility. It is that area I am most interested in for a number of reasons.

Perhaps the most important reason is the fact that many other organizations and agencies use the Section 508 standards as the basis for their own web accessibility policy. So, as this section of the law changes it will have a direct effect on other groups as well.

Second, as many of us watch the Target.com lawsuit proceedings in the court, I suspect that Section 508 will become the benchmark by which the final judgment will be made. I’ll assume for the moment that Section 508 version 2 will meet or exceed the current standards, but the fear I have is that something similar will happen to what’s been happening with the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). There are many in the web accessibility community who think that the latest draft version of the WCAG falls far short of the original document, making the rules less restrictive, and thus making websites potentially less accessible.

WebAIM has provided a blog entry which discusses the process and they for obvious reasons are already participating actively in the revision process.

Stay tuned.

~jeb

I will be doing a workshop tomorrow at the University of Maine in Augusta for the University System folks about Accessible Documents. The basic premise of this workshop is that perhaps 85-90% of this work involves thinking about what you are doing, as opposed to simple procedures.

The workshop will be broken up into sections dealing with basic office suite software like MS-Office and WordPerfect; Adobe Acrobat PDF documents, and; a little bit about HTML/CSS.

Unfortunately, the workshop is not open to the general public, but the resources will be. I will be posting them all on the Maine CITE Accessible Web Design (AWD) page. The resources include some screen captures of procedures and some "cheat sheets." I am planning to also post the PowerPoint presentation and maybe if I find the time, I will do a podcast version of the presentation. We'll see.

The resources can be found here on the Maine CITE AWD page

~jeb

I was recently consulted on a situation regarding accessibility and the course management system Blackboard. Briefly, a faculty member who is a screen reader user was hired by a local university and as part of their job description, was expected to create on-line course content using the school's Blackboard system. There was a problem, Blackboard is not accessible.

I could go into details about the conversations that have transpired between the faculty member, the university administration and the officials at Blackboard, but suffice it to say, the company is aware of the problem. But the solution - an accessible back end for Blackboard - is months, if not years away.

In this day and age, how could this happen?

Who knows. It did.

What's most interesting about this story is that the university in question apparently had their on-line courses through the WebCT system which was more accessible than Blackboard. Now, in fairness WebCT also had some accessibility problems, but they also had a group of dedicated staff who were working feverishly to fix it.

Now, here's the interesting part: Blackboard "acquired" WebCT last February and in the transition to one company, the dedicated work force of WebCT people who were trying to fix the application were, shall we say, not included in the transition plan.

Intentional? Or, did Blackboard's senior administration simply not recognize what was happening?

I'd like to give the company the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it looks like they messed up. Interestingly, they are now posting a message on their website, stating that the "...Accessibilty page you are looking for is currently undergoing maintenance..." I wonder how long that will be there?

Sadly, I think this is probably an all too common occurance, and it says something about the corporate culture in this country. We can add this company to dozens, scores, hundreds of companies who just don't get it (see Target.com lawsuit). And, that lack of awareness (or is it arrogance?) will probably result in litigation and more litigation.

Whether the needs of people with disabilities are met, may become lost in the discussion.

~jeb

I will be presenting a workshop at the ACTEM Fall Conference tomorrow (October 12) in Augusta called "Is Your Moodle Accessible?"

Moodle is an open source course management tool that is gaining popularity in K-12 school and institutions of higher education in Maine and around the world.

One of the best features of Moodle is that Moodle IS accessible - or nearly so - and that in and of itself makes it better than some of the commercial products out there. BUT - the problem with Moodle, as with all web-based applications, is that users can quickly make your site inaccessible through lack of knowledge and understanding.

So, come to my workshop tomorrow to hear more about Moodle and accessibility and find out how you can make sure your Moodle is accessible!

~jeb

Found on the WebAIM Listserv:

October 4, 2007

AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! Unite to Advance Online Media Captioning

In an effort to overcome technology and production barriers, the leading providers of Web-based video have joined with media access pioneer WGBH/Boston to develop solutions that will increase the amount of online video accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have asked WGBH and its Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) to establish and manage the Internet Captioning Forum (ICF). The ICF will initially address the technical challenges presented by online video repurposed from broadcast or other previously captioned sources, as well as video created specifically for the Web.

"More and more people are turning to the Internet to get their news, watch programs and other video,” says WGBH's Director of Media Access, Larry Goldberg. "The scarcity of captions online is due to a variety of challenges, including a proliferation of media and text formats and players, editing of programs originally distributed with captions, and lack of clear online caption production and delivery requirements. The founding members of the ICF are all companies long dedicated to making their products and services accessible to people with disabilities. They recognize that working together on this challenge is the best, fastest and most practical way to get more captioned video on the Web."

The collaboration is expected to yield a range of solutions and tools, among them:

• A database for online media distributors, populated by major captioning providers, of previously captioned programs. This tool will facilitate the location and reuse of existing caption files.
• Technical and standards documents, case studies and best practices for accomplishing pervasive online video captioning.
• Demonstrations of innovative practices to preserve captions while editing and digitizing captioned videos.

In addition to the global audience of people who are deaf or hard of hearing, beneficiaries of the ICF's initiative also include people who rely on translation engines to convert caption text into other languages, people using online video in noisy situations or at work, and search engines that use caption text to search and retrieve online videos.

Cheryl Heppner, executive director of the Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons says, "The formation of the Internet Captioning Forum will become a milestone in the history of access to media. The community of people who are deaf or hard of hearing has worked for decades to achieve the access to television captioning we have now. The partnership of AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! with WGBH promises to be a major step forward for accessible online video."

ICF partners share their thoughts on the collaboration:

"For several years now AOL has been working to tackle the range of challenges to facilitate timely delivery of captioned video content online: from the production and need for automated publishing of caption data to support for the display of captions in AOL’s web-based media player. Our efforts have demonstrated that collaboration between content producers and content distributors is the best way forward to achieve wide scale availability of captioned video on the web. It is our hope that the Internet Caption Forum will provide the venue for producers and distributors to come together to define the model for production and delivery of captions on the Web."
- Tom Wlodkowski, Director of Accessibility, AOL

"The Internet has been one of the most democratizing forces in the communications universe but it needs to accommodate the needs of all its users, including those who have need of features such as captions for audio and adaptable visual presentations. The Forum is one way in which information service providers can work together to establish reliable practices to improve access to Internet-based information."
- Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google

"As a leader in the online media space, we recognize our responsibility to raise the level of service we supply so that it is accessible to everyone. Microsoft is pleased to join with our industry colleagues and WGBH to create solutions that will enable the industry to effectively deliver online captioned media."
- Rob Sinclair, Director, Microsoft Accessibility Business Unit

"Yahoo! applauds the collaborative effort led by WGBH to create a solution for making online video content accessible to all. Because the need for online captioning will continue to grow across the Web, Yahoo! is excited to join with our colleagues to develop quality responses to this accessibility challenge. "
- Victor Tsaran, Accessibility Program Manager, Yahoo!

About NCAM/WGBH
The WGBH-Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) is a research, development and advocacy entity that works to make existing and emerging technologies accessible to all audiences. NCAM is part of the Media Access Group at WGBH, which also includes The Caption Center (est. 1972), and Descriptive Video Service® (est. 1990). For more information, visit access.wgbh.org .

WGBH Boston is America's preeminent public broadcasting producer, the source of fully one-third of PBS's prime-time lineup, along with some of public television's best-known lifestyle shows and children's programs and many public radio favorites. WGBH is also the leading producer of online content for pbs.org, one of the most-visited dot-org sites on the Web. For more information, visit wgbh.org .

Contacts:

WGBH: Mary Watkins, 617 300-3700, mary_watkins@wgbh.org
AOL: Jaymelina Esmele, 703 265-7831, jaymelina.esmele@corp.aol.com
Google: Gabriel Stricker, 650 930-3555, press@google.com,
Microsoft: Ellen Kampel, 425 706-3055, ellenk@microsoft.com
Yahoo!: Julie Han, 408 349-7661, juliehan@yahoo-inc.com

The lawsuit alleging the website for the Target retail store giant is inaccessible to blind shoppers has moved a step forward. According to a report on latimes.com, "Target has failed to use "technologically simple and not economically prohibitive" code embedded in websites allowing the blind to use software that vocalizes the content, according to court filings by the National Federation of the Blind."

Target had requested the lawsuit be thrown out but the courts have moved it forward and in this most recent ruling have "certified" it to "class action" status. This ruling makes it possible, "that all legally blind people in the U.S. who have been denied access to services at Target stores because of deficiencies in the company's website" can join the suit, according to the article.

The Target web accessibility lawsuit has been watched carefully by both sides as it is the first real test of US laws designed to protect the rights of disabled citizens when it comes to web accessibility. Nearly all of the US civil rights legislation was written before the development of the World Wide Web. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would likely be interpreted to mean all commercial websites in the US need to be accessible to the disabled.

Despite urging in the media for Target to settle the lawsuit out of court and move on, "Target has argued that no law -- neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor state law -- could require it to make its website accessible to the blind," according to Larry Paradis, a lawyer for the National Federation of the Blind.

See also this article in E-Week
To be continued . . .

~j

I expect there will be some not-so-happy responses to a listserv message I just posted on the ACTEM website regarding the value of using OpenOffice or other open source software applications.

In the initial message, the writer talked about how the teachers in his school wanted him to install Microsoft-Office so they could complete some forms and other documentation. The school in question had apparently moved toward open source operating systems and applications.

The discussion that followed quickly grew to a fevered pitch and one FOSS evangelist event posted a draft of an open letter to the commissioner of education touting the merits of open source and urging the DOE to stop sending out documents in that evil MS-Word format.

Revised: 9/29/07

I was corrected in my assertions. It appears OpenOffice does produce an XML based output and MS-Office does have a translator to read/write to it. But apparently MS-Office hides this fact.

Bad Microsoft, bad, bad!


~jeb

Apple released a new line of iPods today and the one getting the biggest reaction is the iPodTouch, a hybrid between the iPod and iPhone. It comes with wi-fi which will allow you to download your songs or videos directly to the iPodTouch without having to use a computer. Of course it will only work with iTunes.

The iPodTouch has a web browser similar to the one on the iPhone.

I understand that they have already sold many millions of iPhones and I predict they will be selling even more of these things.

As noted in my previous blog, if you want people to view your website using these new devices, the fastest and safest way of doing this is to build your website using Accessible Web Design standards.

Oh, and btw, it looks like the iPodTouch is not accessible so Stevie Wonder won't be buying one.

~jeb

I guess I am experiencing some deja vu (all over again) as I read Craig Hockenberry's blog on A List Apart describing - with some unabashed excitement - the wonders of web design techniques that will work with the new Apple iPhone.

Several of the comments received thus far lament the idea of this concept and suggest it is akin to going backwards and having to design several versions of each website to fit different browsers the way we did a few years back.

As commentor Richard Samela states:

If you follow the logic of this article, the only conclusion you should come to is that developers should go back to what we did years ago when we had to create different versions of our sites for different browsers and then but a notice on the site saying it’s been optimized for x browser. The purpose of creating standards was so we could design once for all browsers. Should we all start to limit the widths of our pages so people using an iPhone don’t have to scroll horizontally to see everything?

I guess my first reaction to this article is one of "I told you so..." and the second is a bit of concern that we will be bringing back the "browser wars."

Indeed as Samela points out, the whole point of developing standards is to standardize. The equipment people need to build their hardware to meet the software standards and the software standards need to be universal.

That said, I can certainly understand that there will have to be some modifications of web design if we are going to increase the number of mobile web users. However, that's what I have been saying XML is for. If we effectively separate content from presentation (i.e., design and style), we can allow the user to decide what it should look like.

Personally, I like reading blogs using Bloglines where I only get the content and none of the often disruptive and distracting presentational elements. Some people have so many widgets and other distractors on their blog pages I find them almost impossible to read. And, some of them take forever to load.

So, why not have a mobile web device that simply renders the raw content? Well that would put web designers out of business, right?

Read the article and let me know what you think.

Oh, and by the way, this does not deal with the whole inaccessible aspect of the iPhone to begin with. There are not too many in the blind and visually impaired communities who will be running out to make a purchase any time soon.

~jeb

From E-Access Bulletin:

A campaign has been launched to support vision impaired Americans who have problems accessing mobile phone services. The campaign, co-ordinated by the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), will raise awareness of Section 255, a part of the Federal Communications Act that requires all phones to be made usable by people with disabilities.

The 'Cell Phone Accessibility Project' provides consumers with information about Section 255; what consumers can expect from a usable cell phone; information about available cell phones with features that make them more usable by people with vision loss; and strategies that consumers can use in campaigning for phones that meet their needs. The AFB also provides information about how to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which enforces Section 255 .

"Two kinds of complaints can be filed under Section 255, formal and informal. The complaints are informal. The FCC notifies the companies against whom the complaints are filed and the companies are required to contact the consumers to attempt to resolve the accessibility issues," said Paul W. Schroeder, AFB Vice President, Programs and Policy. "We decided to assist a group of individuals in filing a series of complaints to provide evidence to the FCC that the cell phone industry, as a whole has not made enough progress in developing accessible cell phones," he told E-Access Bulletin.

"Hopefully, companies will do two things: provide more details about the accessibility features currently available in phones, and begin working with qualified experts to fully examine accessibility and improve everything from visibility of the display to the tactile identification of keys and speech output for all phone functions and information," Schroeder said.

"Thus far, 14 individuals have filed complaints against the cell phone service provider Sprint Nextel and against several phone manufacturers," said Schroeder. "I expect that there may be a few more complaints that will be filed in the next few weeks as we have a number of individuals who have expressed an interest in making complaints," he said. "Section 255 requires both service providers and manufacturers to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to people with disabilities, if readily achievable. That is why the complaints are against both the provider and the specific phone manufacturer," he explained.

++++
Copyright 2007 Headstar Ltd http://www.headstar.com .
The Bulletin may be reproduced as long as all parts including this copyright notice are included, and as long as people are always encouraged to subscribe with us individually by email. Please also inform the editor when you are reproducing our content. Sections of the bulletin may be quoted as long as they are clearly sourced as 'taken from e-access bulletin, a free monthly email newsletter', and our web site address http://www.headstar.com/eab is also cited.


~j

I made some comments somewhere about a year ago when the W3C released its draft of the "new" accessibility guidelines - WCAG v 2.0. I think those comments became vapor when my DotNetNuke site evaporated.

Anyway, I recall that at the time I thought the new guidelines - note: not standards - were a bit long winded and complicated. Indeed the general reaction from members of the accessible web community was rather scolding and at time nasty. It seems the politics of the process created quite a bit of rift in the community and many of the stalwarts of accessible web design were lining up to poo poo the process and the guidelines.

I also recall that the W3C had planned a month or two for public comment to be followed by the final release. Well, the deadlines came and went and no word of the final release was mentioned. I assumed it meant that there was tremendous consensus that the new version was so bad that they should all go back to the drawing board.

Apparently, there was a group of members of the Accessible Web Design community led by Joe Clark - a generally well regarded leader in the community - that took this as a new challenge and set about write their own sent of new guidelines based upon their noble perception of reality and focusing more on the disabled user than trying to find some negotiated settlements with big business. The result of this new work has now been published as the WCAG Samurai Errata. Basically it returns to WCAG v 1.0 and adds a set of revisions and re-interpretations. The focus again has more to do with users than software developers - which is refreshing - but I must admit that there is a tone of strident anger here that is maybe too much of a push in the other direction.

Over the years, I have encountered advocates of all shapes and sizes. Everything from people who are concerned about the environment to supporters for people with various illnesses. Most of these folks are fairly passionate. but they too can get a bit strident and end up turning off more people than they gain as supporters.

Among those in the disability rights community, there are advocates of all types and some might be consider "extreme." And while I tend to support many of these efforts, I tend to be more of a middle-of-the-road kinda guy and fear that the goals will be lost if the movement gets too extreme.

Being a student of social psychology (and an amateur student of political science), I recognize that one of the ways you can affect change in an otherwise intractable environment is to "push real hard" in the other direction. This often results in all advocates being branded as "the fringe element" or "the lunatic fringe." But it does work, and maybe in this instance, the words of the WCAG Samurai Errata will push the conversation somewhere closer to the middle.

May be not.

My biggest concern regarding the issue of AWD guidelines or standards is how the average person will come to know them, understand them, and use them. If the guidelines are too complicated, people will avoid them as "just too much work." If on the other hand the are too lenient, people will ignore them as being too trivial.

I commend Joe Clark and his band of Samurai warriors for continuing the conversation and trying to fight for something they believe in. And I think most of the actual guidelines they propose make a lot of sense and should be adopted. But I fear the message will be lost in the way it is being presented - and the group will be branded as "the lunatic fringe."

BTW, one of the things the WCAG Samurai Errata require "valid-HTML documents (with valid CSS)." So the first thing I did was check all of the pages of all of my websites to see if they passed this test. I was a bit surprised to find many that are not and have been fixing them ever since. As a result, I haven't had much time to read the rest of the WCAG Samurai Errata.

What's your thoughts on the subject?

~j