Home : Assignments : Accessibility Standards
Accessibility is something that should be at the forefront of every web designer since the implementation of the WCAG 1.0 standards. Web designers before these standards were adopted could completely disregard any of their users who were differently-abled without any thoughts of how those who used the web differently would see their carefully designed sites. Tables were used for layout, though it confused screen readers and alienated potential users due to disjointed descriptions as to what was on the page. No thought or consideration was required to be made of the designers to accommodate even those who had a hard time seeing small print. Something needed to be done in order for more users to be able to have a similar web experience as those who had perfect eyesight and the latest technology. The standards implemented were a step in the right direction—major companies who followed them could protect themselves from potentially damaging law suits. Those who used other forms of electronics to search the web were able to get the same content as they would if on a PC. Basically, the standards of the WCAG helped to promote the same ideas of equal usability that have been in place since Congress passed laws protecting those with disabilities. It stood to reason that since ramps were required in public places, measures needed to be taken in order to help differently-abled persons access the Web.
Updating these standards has been a laborious and slow process. The 1.0 standard was adopted in 1999—nearly nine years ago. Technology has changed remarkably since then, as technology is always apt to do. Streaming audio and video are far more commonplace now than they were previously. The average computer now has a much faster connection than a 56k modem, which makes it possible for the audio and video to stream with very little interruption. Television stations offer episodes only a few short hours after they initially are broadcast on their web sites. News sites convey information quickly and efficiently. And there is a growing trend of relying more heavily on the Internet to convey information to larger audiences of people. Which, of course, means that more people with different abilities will be using websites. Consequently, it is necessary for the standard to be updated.
The currently proposed 2.0 standard addresses some of the newer technologies—like that of streaming video and audio—in order to help those who are differently-abled. However, some of their standards seem to make little sense. How can web developers offer closed captioning for live audio transmissions? It seems like a great equalizing idea, on paper, but almost impossible to implement in the real world. Live shows are close-captioned on television with great expense to those showing it—web developers probably don’t have the time to do it themselves. Offering text descriptions to describe pictures that can’t be described with words for those who can’t see is circular logic. How is a web developer supposed to describe a picture that can’t be described? Another potential guideline that would be bothersome to implement is making the content simple enough to be understood by all users. Sometimes that just isn’t possible—academic web sites, for instance, do not generally cater to the needs of the common man. A child wouldn’t be able to understand some of the content on a page, and “dumbing down” the information so that they’ll be able to seems to be problematic. Making content easy to understand is important, but making it too easy to understand can lose some of the meaning and make a web site practically pointless.
Many of the proposed rules to increase the base of users able to use web sites under the new rules are good. Reaching a broader base will help drum up more business for those selling online, and will help transmitting information during this Information Age. However, at what point does accommodating all users become a problem for web developers? There are only so many steps that can reasonably be taken in order to accommodate the differently-abled, especially when web designers don’t have the training to do so. The WCAG 2.0 should have more concrete examples of what to do and what not to do. It seems they need to follow some of their own rules, too—some of the rules they’re planning to implement make little sense. Their content should be clearer and more understandable.
Sorry...I just thought with the captain issue in question, I'd throw
in my name for consideration.
Pintel