> -----Original Message----- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Smith > Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:13 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists > > Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10... > > Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site > > that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet > does nothing > > for the idea, product or service it promotes. > > Or, of course, breaks the law. Accessibility is a legal > requirement in > Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep > forgetting > this for some (convenient?) reason.
It is a law to implement accessibility into websites as much as reasonably can be expected. That's a fine but important difference. For example: you can reasonably expect government websites to be tested for accessibility before they launch (which from this discussion, I take it, has been done). However, I don't think you can reasonably expect for the website to be tested every day just to make sure accessiblity wasn't somehow screwed up by administrators of the CMS. Even though I am a strong supporter of accesibility, you have to also keep in mind that the idea of the AIMIA awards is to promote innovation in the field of multimedia (not just Internet). So let's assume somebody has got a great idea for a new online application. Let's also assume that this person doesn't have a clue about accessibility or web standards. Nonetheless they go ahead and build this amazing application which will change all of our lifes. They put this application up for the AIMIA awards, as it is truly an innovative site, great graphics, but for the moment it's accessibility compliance is just shocking. Shouldn't this person have the right to win an award for their work even though the site does not comply with web standards or accessibility guidelines? If AIMIA would restrict entries just on the basis that they are not written to the liking of members of the WSG, they would miss out on a large amount of innovative ideas. Having said that, I agree that accessibility and usability should be considered in the marking (probably even more so than it is at the moment) and that of two sites that are evenly innovative the one that provides accessibility and usability should be marked higher. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
