Hi All,

PC Week is running an article entitled "Web blind spots, The disabled
community is potentially a big market. So why is it ignored?"  You can find
the article at:

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2505714,00.html

The article is quite lengthy and repeats a lot of the same information
those who are aware of web accessibility already know--include alt-tags,
web accessibility doesn't mean an ugly site and more.  A couple companion
stories and other resources are linked off the main story.  If you are
accessing the page with a screen reader search for the word "disabled" to
find the text of the story.

While I agree with much of what the article says, I have a problem with
what seems to be a growing trend in writing about web accessibility.  This
article, like several I've read of late, asserts that something like 95 to
99 percent of the web is inaccessible to people with disabilities.

I realize it is difficult to capture the concept of accessible versus
inaccessible in a sentence or two but numbers like the ones reported in
this article do not accurately paint the picture of what's happening in my
opinion.  Further I think in some ways they have the potential to do more
harm than good in making the problem seem too large to even bother trying
to correct.

If you take the view that accessibility equals properly coded pages to say
a priority one or two level of compliance with the W3C guidelines, then
sure we have a case of 95 to 99 percent inaccessibility.  But the term
inaccessible often carries with it the idea that inaccessible equals
complete exclusion.

In the physical world that is probably more true than it is on a web page.
A building lacking a wheelchair ramp for people in a wheelchair to get up a
step or two is far more inaccessible than a web page that lacks full
priority 1 or 2 compliance.  Somehow I'd like to see authors do a better
job of conveying this difference and reflecting that web accessibility is
not quite so much of an all-or-none propisition.

For example I find at least one untagged image map link on the very page
containing the article I'm talking about.  I find the phrase "click here"
used at least once as a link.  Both of these are violations of accessible
design guidelines.  But does that make the page inaccessible and
automatically toss it into that 95 to 99 percent category of inaccessible
web pages?

Please don't take my comments to mean that I'm in any way less of a
believer in web accessibility.  That's certainly not the case.  I just wish
the articles written on the topic would better convey the reality of people
with disabilities who are using the web.  I mean if 99 percent of web pages
locked out people with disabilities completely, I doubt people who are
blind would even be online.

Kelly


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html