I'm a proponent of logical, semantic websites. This means that the site's markup makes sense when you look at it from a logical viewpoint: headers are displayed using
h1...5 tags, paragraphs using
P and groups of elements contained using
DIV tags where appropriate, for example.
This puts me in good stead for being pro-accessibility: many of the WCAG checkpoints fall within the bounds of good logical XHTML markup. I can stand proudly and proclaim that i do my bit for the blind and make websites they can use (not to mention saving lives by not using the
BLINK tag); but in honesty, for me it's a side benefit.
I recently listened to
Patrick Lauke and
Bruce Lawson (podcast from the
Geek In The Park event, that i sadly missed); they talk about how the realities of implementing fully accessible websites often require compromises and usually, for a variety of reasons, don't end up being the perfect example of our idealistic dreams.
I must say, i was a little shocked. I wouldn't expect Linda McCartney to say, "Cor, being a veggy can be tough sometimes... bacon tastes sooooo good so i have to make compromises...".
However it got me thinking about the motivation behind web-accessibility and that perhaps there is a tendancy to place
too much emphasis on it?
"Thou shalt not discriminate against the disabled" - a statement that i would readily agree with. But is using an image for a header, rather than text,
really discriminating against someone who has to use a screenreader? It's not like i'm browser-sniffing for JAWS and then telling them to naff-off, is it?
You don't see the makers of cameras being sued because they don't provide a way to offer a comparitive, accessible product; or radio stations sued because they don't somehow provide a deaf alternative. STRING THOSE BASTARDS UP NOW!
So why do some people get their knickers-in-a-twist about not providing transcripts for podcasts? Isn't that very similar to my facetious radio example?
Where do we draw the line between services/products/processes that are simply not suitable for some people to consume, due to a
disability.
It think it probably boils down to a matter of the technology and what is reasonably available - TV, which is kinda like radio, provides subtitles because
it can. In a similar way it isn't asking too much trouble for you to type-out a transcript (or link to one) and making your site comply to the WCAG guidelines usually isn't all that hard - at the very least you should be writing well structured XHTML Strict which is half the job done.
Our medium is so diverse that i think there is no single definition or guide that will fit with every situation - i mean how on earth can you express Google Maps in an accessible way, without totally destroying the concept?
I don't think we should get hung-up on the issue: if there are reasonable steps to take that make your site accessible - and there normally are - then jump at the opportunity to take them; but if not, don't freak out and try and force yourself into something that just isn't necessary - or worse still: abandon the concept completely.
I'm sure the disabled have come to terms with some things in life not being available to them - shouldn't the abled do the same?
