Care about PWAG?, Philippine Web Accessibility Group Rating Options

[Guest_arch_*]

http://www.pwag.org/


"Can we be sued?" The answer is YES. Although it is not deliberately stated, using the Internet and accessing information from it can also be interpreted as a public service and falls under the assistive technologies.
from here

[TRX]

Mukha silang cool at techy!

Hay nako pag malapit na talaga ang election.

[niong]

OT: No offense to them, but I think they should get a good designer to make their site more attractive (and credible looking). Accessibility and aesthetics don't have to be mutually exclusive.

On topic: Really now, that's nice, but who really thinks that with the current laws in the country related to the web as vague as they are (actually, I'm not sure there are any, anyone?) a designer/website owner can actually be sued for making a website not accessible? Which accessibility guidelines is a Filipino designer supposed to follow anyway...the British? American? I'm not saying it shouldn't be the case...I'm just being realistic here. Maybe we can help make the case for accessibility clearer. As of now, to me the article is just using d plain conjecture at best (i.e. form article: "Although it is not deliberately stated...it can also be interpreted").

[effeye]

SECTION 36. Discrimination on the Use of Public Accommodations. -

(a) No disabled persons shall be discriminated on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,... The following constitute acts of discrimination:

(1) Denying a disabled person, ... benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity by reason of his disability;

(2) Affording a disabled person, on the basis of his disability ...benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege ... that is not equal to that afforded to other able-bodied persons,

So are they saying that non-accessible sites automatically denies/discriminate a disabled person? Woah, i don't think that's logical, specially if its not one of my clients target market. Im not against the fact the we are not allowed to discriminate someone(even the able-bodied), but providing accesibility in every site will take too much time.

Siguro I'd put up a sentence in a site's end-user agreement that every disabled person visiting this site must be assisted by an able-bodied person for them to use the site. Is that valid?

[palconit]

never heard of them until now

makisali nga.

[Guest_arch_*]

http://www.pwag.org/designrecommendations.htm

Checkpoints are easy and short so I dnt see any problem with that.

The "D" hyperlink - not sure what this means and why it's there. I tried looking up Google and found none. Is this a new term by them?

[ksuayan]

So are they saying that non-accessible sites automatically denies/discriminate a disabled person? Woah, i don't think that's logical, specially if its not one of my clients target market. Im not against the fact the we are not allowed to discriminate someone(even the able-bodied), but providing accesibility in every site will take too much time.

Siguro I'd put up a sentence in a site's end-user agreement that every disabled person visiting this site must be assisted by an able-bodied person for them to use the site. Is that valid?

The main principle of accessibility really is that people with disabilities (or differently abled) have the same rights as "normal" people and that they should not be treated as second class citizens. Accessibility laws usually are put in place to empower people with disabilities so that they are reasonably independent and be ABLE to lead productive lives ON THEIR OWN (i.e. to level the playing field).

As for lawsuits, I always say compliance needs to be partly evaluated on basis of calculated risk of litigation depending
on the nature of each website. A personal online photo gallery does not incur the same litigation risk as a website that processes social security benefits for instance (either in terms of traffic or public utility value of the site). On the other hand, as developers/designers it really depends on how morally obliged you are to doing the right thing (despite the current deficiencies in our existing laws).

I would consider the founding of the PWAG a step in the right direction. I just hope that it's a long term initiative rather
than driven by fads or buzzwords of the week. I agree our existing laws are pretty vague and weak in terms of
clarity in its provisions and much work remains to be done.

-kyo-

-------------------
Atty. Kyo Suayan
Mandurugas, Mandarambong & Mandaraya Law Offices

[effeye]

-------------------
Atty. Kyo Suayan
Mandurugas, Mandarambong & Mandaraya Law Offices

Nice, i'll refer you to my friends.. ahahahah

Yeah its a good thing na meron ng accesibility group sa bansa natin. Pano pala ung bulag? eheheh

[zando]

Pano pala ung bulag? eheheh

Voice reader. One of the reason why we should provide clear but concise alternate text to all our images.

[ksuayan]

Voice reader. One of the reason why we should provide clear but concise alternate text to all our images.

JAWs and WindowEyes are among the most popular apps in this segment.
http://www.gwmicro.com/
http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_produc...ftware_jaws.asp

Most accessibility folks recommend placing alternate text for key images only.
Alt text for things like single pixel spacers does not help with users of screen readers.

There are some grey areas also. At work, two of our accessibility subject matter experts have differing views on
what to do with "ambient" information such as those found in background images on mastheads
(for example, in the GW Micro site above, the woman with headphones does not necessarily have to
appear in the ALT attribute).


-kyo-

[zando]

Most accessibility folks recommend placing alternate text for key images only.
Alt text for things like single pixel spacers does not help with users of screen readers.

There are some grey areas also. At work, two of our accessibility subject matter experts have differing views on
what to do with "ambient" information such as those found in background images on mastheads
(for example, in the GW Micro site above, the woman with headphones does not necessarily have to
appear in the ALT attribute).
-kyo-

Thank you for pointing this one out kyo! I never put an alt text on images that are used for layout purposes. I meant to say images that have some impact on the content. An example would be: text images; images cited or is being referred to; banners; et al.

I normally provide descriptive text on the grey areas that you mentioned. I think it's better for the visually impaired to navigate and sift through the information by knowing how the images are treated.

Another issue that I wanted to raise was whether or not designers/developers should charge extra for making sites accessible? Or is this a presumed idea that should be expected from the beginning? In the end, the designer/developer will have put labor hours for it. Not all clients understand its needs or the need to pay extra for accessibility. We can exclude sites that are visually intensive and client specific like visual galleries.

[ksuayan]

Another issue that I wanted to raise was whether or not designers/developers should charge extra for making sites accessible? Or is this a presumed idea that should be expected from the beginning? In the end, the designer/developer will have put labor hours for it. Not all clients understand its needs or the need to pay extra for accessibility. We can exclude sites that are visually intensive and client specific like visual galleries.

Hi Zando,

In some cases, the "added steps" in making a site more accessible (if given the right tools) may not have significant impact on timelines and costs. Most practices become second nature when applied regularly. For AJAX-heavy or Flash-centric sites though, it could be quite significant.

Actually, I think it's the self-education outside of the project that takes some time investment from the designer/developer's part.

Right now, it's probably a little challenging to justify the cost for most Philippine based clients considering the lack of local statistics. But then again, most websites are really reachable by an international audience.

I found the following statistics in a Dr. Dobbs article interesting from 2002:

• In the European Community, approximately 37 million people (or 1 in every 10 citizens) have a disability.
• There are more than 4 million Canadians (or 1 in every 7 individuals) with a disability.
• Approximately 3.7 million Australians live with a disability.
• In the United States, according to statistics available in the 1997 U.S. census, approximately 54 million people live with at least one disability.
• 1 in 10 Americans has a severe disability.
• Among American children aged 6-14, 1 in 8 have some type of disability.
• 1 in 2 Americans 65 years and older has a disability.
• 1 in 5 Americans between the ages of 15 and 64 years has a disability

source: http://www.ddj.com/184412393

Also found this discussion:
"How do you get your client to pay for accessibility?"
http://juicystudio.com/displayarticle.php/...cessibility.php

-kyo-

[Guest_arch_*]

I never thought Accessibility is a feature that client will pay more, but it's a very good idea. I always think Accessibility is part of web designing and not an "add-on" same as being Standard.

Accessibility is not yet a fad, hopefully it is. Perhaps 10 years from now.

[zando]

To be more specific, I'm not inclined to encourage anyone to pay more specifically for accessibility. But on the designer/developer side, it does take time to create and test. If I were to disregard accessibility for example, I'm fairly sure that I can finish a project faster. Accessibility is an added cost (in labor hours) to our projects, perhaps us designers/developers will just have to evaluate whether it's implementation is critical or not, on a case to case basis. From the comments made, I can only presume that designers/developers and clients have different recommendation about the topic (for now). Educating our client will be part of that complexity.

Whereas accessibility is generally an ideal concept, designers/developers should also be equally aware of its inadequacy and criticisms.
Testability Costs Too Much

I'm for web accessibility, but not as a gospel truth.

[MaeMae]

http://www.pwag.org/designrecommendations.htm

Checkpoints are easy and short so I dnt see any problem with that.

The "D" hyperlink - not sure what this means and why it's there. I tried looking up Google and found none. Is this a new term by them?

longdesc is not supported by the browsers right now so if you're going to have a map or graph in one of your pages, accessibility people are pushing for the "D Link" Meaning You'll give a summary of what the image is all about (alt attribute) then you'll create a linked "D" after the image. It will bring up a page where you have described in full what the graph or map or whatever the image is all about.

The most misconception is that accessibility is for the disabled people alone but it's really making your site accessible to (almost if not) every type of people, mobile, disabled (blind, color blind, etc), people on dial up, people who's not using a standard browser (lynx), people who can't use or doesn't have an access to) a mouse (iPhone?), people with CSS/images turned off etc. I think for the most part, we're already aware and we're incorporating it into our designs already.

[jiminycricket]

Guys, I got this 2-minute YouTube video that tells about PWAG. It explains in detail about how a website is viewed by a blind or a deaf person. It also expounded about the potential number of visitors who are disabled that may be deprived of access to information. Please view it. Just a reminder, you must have your speaker turned ON in order to hear the screen reader talk. :-)

Web Accessibility PWAG

[SuperPanda]

longdesc is not supported by the browsers right now so if you're going to have a map or graph in one of your pages, accessibility people are pushing for the "D Link" Meaning You'll give a summary of what the image is all about (alt attribute) then you'll create a linked "D" after the image. It will bring up a page where you have described in full what the graph or map or whatever the image is all about.

The most misconception is that accessibility is for the disabled people alone but it's really making your site accessible to (almost if not) every type of people, mobile, disabled (blind, color blind, etc), people on dial up, people who's not using a standard browser (lynx), people who can't use or doesn't have an access to) a mouse (iPhone?), people with CSS/images turned off etc. I think for the most part, we're already aware and we're incorporating it into our designs already.

There are still gray areas there - if the photograph is meant to be artistic in nature (e.g. an explanation would be destructive to the piece), I don't think the developer should be liable. It should be the client's prerogative to include that description or not.

While I'm all for accessibility, we are, after all, consultants. If they client refuses to take the time to make his site accessible, he should be liable, not us.

[MaeMae]

While I'm all for accessibility, we are, after all, consultants. If they client refuses to take the time to make his site accessible, he should be liable, not us.

I think what they're trying to say is that we should at least take the time to educate our clients.

[SuperPanda]

I think what they're trying to say is that we should at least take the time to educate our clients.

Op kors.

Speaking of which, dapat nasa contracts natin yan - we explain the implications of not spending the time to make the site accessible, and when they sign, dapat understood nila that we have already explained to them the implications, and if they refuse to take the time, sila liable.



Now, with regards to the developer NOT doing his accessibility job properly... well...

[MaeMae]

Op kors.

Speaking of which, dapat nasa contracts natin yan - we explain the implications of not spending the time to make the site accessible, and when they sign, dapat understood nila that we have already explained to them the implications, and if they refuse to take the time, sila liable.
Now, with regards to the developer NOT doing his accessibility job properly... well...

I believe yung masu-sue if ever are the owners of the site and not the designers and developers, of course they could put the blame on the designers so yeah.. it should be in the contract.