Café Rouge has recently relaunched their website with accessibility in mind and are "taking the challenge of web accessibility seriously", according to their press release today. I’m not so sure if I agree with this statement. They claim their website conforms to Level A of the accessibility guidelines, but really this is nothing to shout about. (This is particularly true as the site doesn’t even conform to level A. For example, the site can’t be used if images are turned off and equivalent content isn’t provided for users who don’t have Flash.)

Conformance to just Level A guidelines means that more or less everyone will be able to access the content, but really you’ve got to be aiming higher than this. Even though most people can access all the content, it will be so incredibly difficult and arduous to do so for many users with special needs that they might as well have not bothered. We’ve got to be aiming higher than Level A, particularly when building a brand new site that isn’t particularly sizeable. Full compliance with level AA or even AAA isn’t realistic for many organisations in practice, but we at least need to be aiming for these as every little bit helps.

Probably the most ironic thing about the Café Rouge press release is that the homepage of their new site sports a link, 'click here'. Avoiding link text like 'click here' and making sure link text makes sense out of context is one of the most well known and important guidelines out there.

Trenton Moss, Webcredible

Hi Trenton,

You’re right when you say that WCAG Single-A isn’t great. It would be acceptable if the site owner demonstrated their commitment to making an ongoing improvement to increase the level of accessibility of the site though.

What worries me most is that the site doesn’t live up to the claims that it’s making. Moreover, the fact that they mention Bobby on their accessibility page demonstrates the agency’s lack of experience in accessibility testing. Either the client should mandate the agency to seek independent auditing, or the agency should realise their skill and seek it themselves.

Kind regards,
Paul

____________________
Paul Walsh
Segala, CEO

Do you design, build or test Web sites?
Join the Segala-Certified Partner Programme for Accessibility
Charter Membership extended until 31st October 2006
http://partner.segala.com

Sorry - but isn't this a bit rich coming from a company that fails to use standard link colours on their own site?!

On 23:53:09 31 October 2006 dcjarvis wrote:
[snip]
>
>Site owners certainly have a duty under the DDA to
>"make reasonable adjustments" (whatever that
>means) - and I think that's what the Cafe Rouge guys have
>done. They should be congratulated for that, not poked fun
>at...

[PW]
I agree that companies trying to adjust should be seen in a favourable light. That's what Segala's partner programme is all about. I feel strongly about this point.

My objective was to highlight the sites failure to live up to the claims being made. It’s probably down to the agency forgetting to execute some important test cases.

>Nevertheless with all supposedly "accessible"
>sites, the real fun comes into play when you see actual
>screenreader users interacting with one of these sites.
>
>Then you realise an accessible site, no matter how many
>W3C accreditations it has does not maketh an accessible
>and usable *experience*.

[PW]
I’m not sure what “W3C accreditations” mean but one shouldn't assume that 'an accessible' site isn't a usable one. You'd need to be pretty dumb to create such a site. That's not to say it doesn't happen from time to time. If a site isn’t accessible to a disabled user using an assistive technology such as a screen reader, it can hardly be said that the site is ‘accessible’, or at least to those people.

It’s dangerous to make blanket statements of this kind as it gives the wrong impression about the benefits of accessibility. I would only expect to hear this come from a professional that is not experienced in correct Web accessibility design and/or evaluation methods.

Kind regards,
Paul
http://www.segala.com/partner/testimonials.htm

Deri,

Aren't we in agreement? :) My 'additional' point was to highlight the fact that too many people slate the WAI guidelines and provide blanket statements that demonstrate their lack of experience implementing them.

What site are you referring to with the search problems? If you're referring to E-consultancy then you've chosen a fine example of a site that's embracing accessibility for the long haul by making ongoing improvements...

Paul

On 15:51:00 1 November 2006 DeriJones wrote:

Paul, methinks you protest too much.

dcjarvis was only after supporting good Accessibility,

... and raising a sensible pragmatic angle - that it's the user *experience* overall that makes a profitibale/valuable website for an organisation.

Accessibility is a core part of the user experience - but not the only component.

Guess which site known to us all responds with the following if the user types in a 'wrong' search phrase:

>The keyword search expression you entered is syntactically incorrect and cannot be understood by the boolean interpreter.
>Please review your search and try again.

And in red font.

In general, we should try to praise sites moving down the accessibility road more than we do; I guess we all like to point the finger too much...

Deri