First of all, it is worth stating that the section of Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that mentions accessible websites was actually put into force way back in 1999. The new laws implemented in October 2004 are to do with physical access to buildings, and are nothing to do with accessible websites.
The relevant sections from the DDA (1999) are as follows:
5.23 (p71): “For people with visual impairments, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”
5.26 (p68): “For people with hearing disabilities, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”
So, there is no specific information provided by the government to help web site designers. However, it is widely accepted that if a site can be shown to be compliant with the Priority 1 guidelines from the W3C (or the 'A' standard from Bobby) that your site can be considered accessible. The EU also has guidelines on accessible websites, which state that the Priority 2 (or 'AA') guidelines should be met. Actinic meets most of these, but misses out on full compliance by using tables to control the layout of pages rather than CSS stylesheets.
It is worth stating, in conclusion, that the sort of sites which organisations like the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) are really critical of are sites that are purely driven by Flash, or sites which are nothing but images. Actinic sites comply with all of the Priority 1 guidelines (and most of the Priority 2 ones) - and they are static html, with a consistent layout, full use of ALT text and no reliance on JavaScript for controlling layout. They are not the sort of sites which the DDA was set up to eliminate.
With thanks to WebCredible (http://www.webcredible.co.uk/)
The relevant sections from the DDA (1999) are as follows:
5.23 (p71): “For people with visual impairments, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”
5.26 (p68): “For people with hearing disabilities, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”
So, there is no specific information provided by the government to help web site designers. However, it is widely accepted that if a site can be shown to be compliant with the Priority 1 guidelines from the W3C (or the 'A' standard from Bobby) that your site can be considered accessible. The EU also has guidelines on accessible websites, which state that the Priority 2 (or 'AA') guidelines should be met. Actinic meets most of these, but misses out on full compliance by using tables to control the layout of pages rather than CSS stylesheets.
It is worth stating, in conclusion, that the sort of sites which organisations like the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) are really critical of are sites that are purely driven by Flash, or sites which are nothing but images. Actinic sites comply with all of the Priority 1 guidelines (and most of the Priority 2 ones) - and they are static html, with a consistent layout, full use of ALT text and no reliance on JavaScript for controlling layout. They are not the sort of sites which the DDA was set up to eliminate.
With thanks to WebCredible (http://www.webcredible.co.uk/)
), but I thought I ought to tell you.
Comment