Beyond compliance
Digital image by Joe McConnell
In the first of a series of articles on the accessibility of art on the internet, Joe McConnell looks at the wide gap that separates self-declared accessible websites from websites which are genuinely trying to offer disabled people a comparable experience to that of the non-disabled.
Introduction
After a trawl through the internet art world, many disabled people soon end up gaping across the so-called digital divide at a beautiful promised land from which they are still excluded. In terms of accessibility, the sites offering visual static or time-based art fall into three broad categories. Firstly, there are the sites that are not accessible either through incompetence or through not giving a flying fig. Then there are sites that appear to comply with recognised accessibility standards. Finally there is the tiny cluster of sites that genuinely provide a satisfying experience to disabled visitors.
The formal standards used to measure accessibility are set by the Web Accessibility Initiative WAI of the World Wide Web Consortium W3C. UK legislation uses these standards as a benchmark. There are three levels to these standards. Passing the first level indicates that certain features have been included in the construction of the site that help to improve access. Compliance at all three levels indicates that more rigorous preparation has been undertaken. Unfortunately, compliance is self-testing using validation software such as can be found at http://webxact2.watchfire.com. The sites which believe themselves to conform at all three levels, slap an AAA banner on their home page. For full details of these standards see w3.org/WAI/about.html.
Legislative Perspective
In a helpful article on the Disability Discrimination Act and the web, Trenton Moss points out that there is a lack of clarity from the Disability Rights Commission as to legal requirements governing accessibility. Possibly because of this vagueness, there appears to be a general perception that the section of the DDA referring to websites came into force recently, which explains the current scramble of many sites to seek AAA-status. Moss reminds us that the DDA has required service providers to ensure equality of access to their websites since 1999 when Section III of the act came into force. Although there is yet to be a test case in the UK, large organisations have been successfully prosecuted in Australia and the US using similar legislation to the DDA.
A recent investigation conducted by the DRC into the accessibility of 1000 public service websites revealed that a shocking 80% were fraught with access shortcomings. However, at the end of the day, a website proprietor facing prosecution will probably only have to prove compliance with Level 1 of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines to demonstrate that the sad old reasonable adjustments have been made.
The guidelines themselves are a set of extremely useful rules towards achieving a certain level of accessibility. Any cynicism in this article does not reflect disrespect for these standards. In fact achieving compliance at all three levels is extremely hard work. But there is no legal requirement whatsoever to make a website into a positive experience for disabled visitors. And standards-compliance is only one small step towards that goal.
Please comment on this article using the form below.
Your comments please…
Allow up to 7 days for comments to be moderated before publication - and please do not submit more than once! Comments are limited to 2000 characters (around 300 words).
Paula Schreiber said on 2006-03-04 18:35:
Its true there is so little visual description out there, even though the technology has been available for yonks. When is Sally Booths site to go online
Jacob Lundig said on 2006-03-04 18:38:
You say that the technical provision of an audio description facility is not costly BUT can you give details of how to go about this. Are there guidelines for what makes for a good description How objective subjective should it be Is there more coming on this subject
Theresa G said on 2006-03-14 19:58:
I don't quite see the point in BSL interpretation. I understand the cultural significance, but because Deaf people can access the website doesn't the BSL bit make it more cluttered and harder for people making websites to achieve? It's like saying that websites should ideally be available in all spoken languages as well isn't it?
Lizzie said on 2006-03-15 15:22:
What's with the eye on the front page of this article?
Dave Everitt said on 2006-04-02 04:21:
In response to Theresa G: because BSL is an essential part of Deaf Culture, and because written or spoken English isn't necessarily the primary language of choice for the Deaf community, web-based BSL interpretation is a valid consideration, although I agree that it should not complicate a site. Detailed image descriptions are already part of the dao site and similar facility for BSL is possible, but an elegant solution is some way off at present.
Dave Everitt said on 2006-04-02 04:25:
In response to Lizzie: the graphics on pages 1-3 of this feature were meant to convey some of the issues concerning web access. The 'eye' on the opening page is meant to represent 'seeing beyond' the Web Accessibility Initiative to a deeper level, beyond mere compliance. But okay, I admit it does look a bit weird.
last updated: 2006-02-01 00:00:00
More by this author : Graeae Theatre: Scene Change Face On Minding the Gap Karen Sheader: Planet of the Blind Alison Jones: The Smell of Honey An interview with Philip Patston The Power of Touch Next Year in Auckland Liberty Festival 2005 Mind the Gap LDAF Disability Film Festival Artsadmin Digital Bursaries 2004 Karen Sheader: Planet of the Blind Interview with Danny Start Interview with Lou Birks Ways of Seeing Art Disability Culture Abnormal we stand A Series of Lines
tags : visual impairment accessibility