Web standard compliance, accessibility and free software was Re: Frod [was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Free internet (technologically)]

[Simon Waters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>   Ford US need JS for a redirector on the first page (and that's /all/
>   that first page is used for!).  After that, it's not as good as Ford
>   UK (fewer ALT tags on images, for instance) but looks probably usable.

Has to be said that whilst some other people use text only browsers, the
visually impaired probably aren't that interested, as a group, in what
is on the Ford website. So "probably usable" is probably "good enough"
just for once.

I think there are two distinct but related issues being muddled.

Correct mark-up (and standard compliance), which make content usable in
multiple browsers and platforms, and accessibility.

Our goal is to promote free software, I think what we need to do is
identify free software products that produce correct mark-up and
accessible sites, and promote these as solutions for building websites
(possibly encouraging authors to correct, or correcting those products
that fail the testing).

No one wants to be told they have a problem with their website, unless
you can supply them a solution as well, preferably not one involving
hours with a text editor, or great expense.

I know from my own pitiful attempt at a company website I reverted to
hand correcting the HTML in order to ensure it passes the various
validations, this is clearly not the way to "solve" either issue in the
long run.

Certainly if people are keen I can devote some (!) time to a preliminary
survey, if the work hasn't been done already, unless I get a sudden
influx of work.

I'm aware of a selection of validators for correct mark-up*, and
accessibilty for the visually impaired, and even one for colour blindness.

I envisage a table, headed "package", "version", "licence",
"description", "produces correct mark-up", "produces accessible sites",
"comments", "Where to get", probably with graded results as these things
are rarely black and white. Colour blindness raises other issues, and
may be better dealt with at the browser end.

Does such an effort exist already? Is it the right way to go? Perhaps we
merely need to check the licences of products, and refer people to other
sites (like Accessify.com, webthing.com, w3c.org) for more detailed
information on the relevant products?

With apologies to Nick and Julie, for dragging them in half way through
a discussion over at www.affs.org.uk. But I figure we could use some
advice on the best direction to head in, and know-how on what has gone
before.

Also read ...
http://www.accessify.com/articles/accessibility-of-uk-government-websites.asp
... which I suspect is a better focus than motor car manufacturers.

I know one of our local councils (East Devon District) is revisiting
it's eGovernment solutions, and looking for off-the-shelf products,
although no doubt e-GIF compliance is their first stated goal (the e-GIF
framework looks like an explosion in an acronym factory to me, but what
do I know), accessibility is obviously a key requirement. I doubt they
are alone in being in this position.

 Simon

* The coolest validator (but not necessarily best) being the Konqueror
add-ins, which most Debian boxes have installed, but need you to add the
plug-in directory in settings, this is also how you make Konqueror (and
the Kate editor) speak to you in the style of Stephen Hawkings. My first
attempt to replace the Stephen-like voice with a female American voice
failed miserably however, so be warned.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+3xhNGFXfHI9FVgYRAtJgAJ47d3mA5xUihJ/Ya2lezgnXa+S3gACfc2Xi
JtUsSe0KR0JKL2nfXKHTOnc=
=0A7K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----