re: Crabby's Accessibility series—Day 2: Who's it for?

Annik Stahl — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:34:10 GMT

Jeroen: Thank you so much for your well written and well thought-out comment. And of course you're absolutely correct: So much needs to be done, thought about, implemented before even attemtping to commmit to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG; Readers, more about what that is here: en.wikipedia.org/.../Web_Content_Accessibility_Guidelines).

I am in the process of finding one of our accessibilitiy group leaders to read and respond to your comment. If you could kindly send me an email (MSFTCrabby@hotmail.com) I most appreciate it. Then we can converse further about this important topci. I'd really lovey our input.

Thanks again.

~Crabby

re: Crabby's Accessibility series—Day 2: Who's it for?

Jeroen Hulscher — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:07:40 GMT

First of all: great post with a valuable insight on accessibility! It's good to remind ourselves from time to time who we're doing it all for.

I do however have some questions:

Do you happen to know any user that loves it when he forgets one field in a rather large form before he submits, and then gets returned from the error page to a whole empty form again?

Do you know of any users that loves it when text has such a low contrast that they have to squint their eyes in order to read your content?

Do you know of any iPad user who's never been happier than that moment when he gets to a page where he sees a blank spot instead of a cool video?

The point I'm trying to make is this: building accessible websites has - in essence - nothing to do with people that have to cope with disabilities. It has to do with building thought-out interfaces with enough focus on each layer of the product: Code, content, styling and behavior. Of course we do have to make a few extra steps to make it fully accessible to anyone, but the general quality of your product should be sufficient to at least commit to WCAG level AA. If we would take 2 of 3 random websites of the internet, you'll probably find that this quality standard is where it goes wrong every single time.

I suggest we focus on this general quality first, with arguments like a logical interface, a better findability and a more usable website. If we can make this step, accessibility will take less effort to achieve.

Just my two cents, thanks for your insights!

Crabby + Accessibility series: Who's it for?

re: Crabby's Accessibility series—Day 2: Who's it for?

re: Crabby's Accessibility series—Day 2: Who's it for?