Comments on: The Myth of “Technically Accessible”

By: Entrecard'es

Entrecard'es — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:52:06 +0000

Truly agree what you said”When a company claims “technical accessibility” it is because they have not actually tested their software or content management system with people, much less tested with those that rely on assistive technology.”And Google is one of them.It’s the machine world.

By: Tina1980

Tina1980 — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:43:07 +0000

Accessibility simply has to be king, TV and Radio were some of the most accessible technologies ever made. I appreciate modern websites are in a different league, but there’s no reason to simply cut people out from using them. So spot on Matt, as usual.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:26:25 +0000

Sounds like you know how to build a quality website. I totally agree about too much movement on a webpage. Some sites have stuff moving and flashing all over the place, it’s very distracting.

By: Gallery Sites

Gallery Sites — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:59:37 +0000

Another great post Matt.

Bring your articles over to my article directory. We’d love to have you join us!

By: Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:22:12 +0000

Oh – I completely agree. The amount of interpretation in the 2.0 guidelines is amazing – much more wiggle room. I’ve experienced this with a few vendors (internationally-known) who are taking complete advantage of that in order to justify the “technical accessibility” label.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:16:53 +0000

There’s no question that the 1.0 guidelines were easier to understand; the 2.0 guidelines have taken a harder line by avoiding technology-specific language. This makes them much more valuable as they pertain to accessibility in technology — harder to meet to the letter without embracing the spirit — but more difficult to understand.

On the whole, however, the 2.0 guidelines are a significant improvement — at least in part because they are also harder to misunderstand!

By: Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:23:13 +0000

Thanks, Joe. I appreciate the input. I like the old 1.0 guidelines, in some ways I believe they were much clearer than the 2.0 guidelines.

That being said, I am incorporating some of the 2.0 guidelines into a future article that evaluates them against what we have tested and witnessed in the field. Similar rules apply – vendors claim to be accessible, but neglect the finer points of usability.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:48:43 +0000

Great post, Matt. I do want to point out that you’re referencing the accessibility checkpoints outlined by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 1.0, which have since been superceded by WCAG version 2.0.

This doesn’t in any way render your observations about mechanically-verified accessibility incorrect, of course, but for the sake of accuracy, WCAG 1.0 is not a recommended basis for comparison.

Thanks for this great contribution! It’s good to see you continuing to raise these issues.