No Andreas
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
Australian gov websites are not tested for accessibility before they
are launched.
They are not even changed years later when someone points out the
errors.
They stay are they were launched full of the same errors everyday.
Cenbtrelink's website has had the same errors for three years that I
know of.
Why are you making excuses for shoddy work and pretending that
reviewers caught them on an off day?
Everyday when I change a page I check the validation and accessibility,
why can't .gov do the same
You make excuses for those breaching the 1992 Discrimination Disability
Act Andreas
and that could potentially cause you a lot of trouble
What dream are you in that believes they are mostly OK.
They are flawed and stay flawed everyday. Get real Andreas.
Tim
Tim
On 24/01/2007, at 12:29 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Smith
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:13 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists
Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10...
Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site
that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet
does nothing
for the idea, product or service it promotes.
Or, of course, breaks the law. Accessibility is a legal
requirement in
Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep
forgetting
this for some (convenient?) reason.
It is a law to implement accessibility into websites as much as
reasonably
can be expected. That's a fine but important difference.
For example: you can reasonably expect government websites to be
tested for
accessibility before they launch (which from this discussion, I take
it, has
been done). However, I don't think you can reasonably expect for the
website
to be tested every day just to make sure accessiblity wasn't somehow
screwed
up by administrators of the CMS.
Even though I am a strong supporter of accesibility, you have to also
keep
in mind that the idea of the AIMIA awards is to promote innovation in
the
field of multimedia (not just Internet). So let's assume somebody has
got a
great idea for a new online application. Let's also assume that this
person
doesn't have a clue about accessibility or web standards. Nonetheless
they
go ahead and build this amazing application which will change all of
our
lifes. They put this application up for the AIMIA awards, as it is
truly an
innovative site, great graphics, but for the moment it's accessibility
compliance is just shocking.
Shouldn't this person have the right to win an award for their work
even
though the site does not comply with web standards or accessibility
guidelines? If AIMIA would restrict entries just on the basis that
they are
not written to the liking of members of the WSG, they would miss out
on a
large amount of innovative ideas.
Having said that, I agree that accessibility and usability should be
considered in the marking (probably even more so than it is at the
moment)
and that of two sites that are evenly innovative the one that provides
accessibility and usability should be marked higher.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
