Donna,
If I was in your situation, I would write a letter to the director of the organisation, outlining several things. Firstly point out how much time and effort you have put into the organsiation over the years, and how passionate you feel about whatever their cause is, and how proud you have been to provide a website for them.
Next, outline some basic technical reasons why they should not use the PR firms code and why they should go for a standards based solution, Accessibility seems to be the one thing that is getting some sort of response, so work on this point, but also mention cost savings, search engine rankings, future proofing, browser compatibility etc, these issues can't hurt your argument, but don't go into to much detail here, it doesn't sound like they are that interested.
Finally, point out how you would be doing them a dis-service if you did not raise these issues with them, explaining that you personally have nothing to gain by insisting on a standards based site and how you only want what is best for them.
A letter is usually a good way of attracting attention, if you have gone to the bother of writing rather than emailing or calling, it must be important.
I would also send a copy of the letter to the PR company, if nothing else it may get them thinking about standards, which may be too late to help your cause, but may help some other company who has the mis-fortune of dealing with them in the future.
Good luck, whatever you do.
Charlie
On 12/6/05, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions wrote:
> The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out
> already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are
> policing the web.
>
> When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to)
> understand the 'technical' aspects (bandwidth, ease of maintenance,
> accessibility, cross UA compatibility, 'standards' compliance, etc) then a
> certain amount of licence has to be applied to the explanation and reasoning
> for adopting standards. If that involves making a comparison to a standard
> in their field of business then so be it.
But if that comparison is inaccurate or outright misleading ("your site
will fall foul of regulations by some mythical central authority") you
may be hurting your case more than helping it. What if they check with
other people ("so this other guy says the page will be against the law")
and are told that there is no indication of this happening? You may as
well go completely overboard and tell them that they're likely to get
sued
http://accessify.com/2005/12/legal-advice-from-automated-testing.php ...
but I'm not sure if getting a contract because of FUD is the right way
to go.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
