Section 508 Realistic?

[TigerGirl7]

Hi,

I have a potential non-profit client who needs a website rich in multimedia, images, and so on (for marketing purposes). Their IT person injected the following requirements for the website:

- Site should strictly comply with XHTML 1.0 Transitional DTD.

- All layout (static or generated) shall take the form of style sheets (CSS2).

- Tables reserved for tabular data.

- Validation will be performed using the W3C CSS Validation Service.

- All pages shall meet the criteria of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Are these requirements realistic? They seem to me to be a bit "idealistic", or "hopeful". What would you say to a client in this situation?

cheers!

 

[Vragabond]

What would you say to a client in this situation?

Very smart thinking. I could not have advised you any better. Do you mind if we go for XHTML Strict?

Seriously, you have stumbled upon a smart client who knows what is important in a website. More than support for NN4 or having a fancy function that crashes all but the most popular browser. I think the requirements are completely realistic.

 

[TigerGirl7]

Thanks. I am all for accessibility. However when someone says "strict" - that could mean anything. For instance, if I have a Flash 5 slide show with voice narration, do I now need to include a video of someone signing sign language to be in strict compliance?

I guess what I'm wondering is how I can realistically satisfy the client's expectations without misleading them into thinking that they need a website like useit.com. There are obviously many accessibility conventions that designers should follow. However, if the New York Times fails a vaildation test (or some pages on w3c.org for that matter), I don't think I should be expected to maintain utopian standards for a real world website. Or am I assuming to much?

I think I'm just looking for the comfort zone between w3c compliancy and meeting the needs of my client's primary audience.

 

[Foamcow]

For your Flash movie you would need to provide a transcript of any audio content.

I agree with Vragabond. Very sensible thinking.

It takes people like "us" to make standards actually standard.
Why alienate part of your potential audience? It's actually all the frilly extras that we like to put in the way that makes sites non-accessible.
Most accessiblity is just common sense.

Foamcow Heavy Industries - Web design and ranting
Toccoa Games - Day of Defeat gaming community
Target Marketing Communications - Advertising, Direct Marketing and Public Relations
"I'm making time

 

[TigerGirl7]

not all extras are frilly, however. especially when they provoke a sale.....

 

[stormbind]

Have you tried viewing a flash-heavy site in a browser without flash? It is more likely to lose customers than provoke a sale.

--Glen

Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[TigerGirl7]

Who doesn't have Flash? 1% of my audience?

 

[BabyJeffy]

I think TigerGirl7 was referring to frilly (not Flash, Stormbind ). And I have to agree... frilly things can indeed provoke a sale!

OK... back to the serious bit... as loong as y ou can measure your output, you will be fine. When they say "Strict xyz", make sure there is a defined way of measuring that you have complied.

Jeff

 

[TigerGirl7]

*** When they say "Strict xyz", make sure there is a defined way of measuring that you have complied. ***

Excellent idea... but how? Even when I run Google's homepage through a validator, errors come up. What should the standard be?

 

[stormbind]

Tiger, how do you know how many viewers have Flash? Browsers have a tendency to download objects whether they can display them or not.

The FF browser, at least when I last downloaded it, did not come with Flash as standard. The NN plugin is available, but some flash applets cause it to consume 100% CPU usage (seemed to be something to do with clipping or lack thereof) - and with this occurance being most common with adverts which appear unsuspectingly, many FF users have dispensed with Flash.

MSIE 5.5 and earlier do not come with flash plugin, though it is readilly available you cannot be sure that the user has it. Being prompted to install Flash on every page does little to generate interest in browsing the remaining HTML content.

Flash cannot be parsed by search robots, so any text content displayed in them is not indexed. This might have an impact on site rating in search results.

There's quite a few ways in which Flash can lose customers.

--Glen

Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[kaht]

If you didn't like the answers you were undoubtedly going to get why did you ask the question in the first place?

What should the standard be?

I think you answered that question in your first post.

-kaht

...looks like you don't have a job, so why don't you get out there and feed Tina.

 

[TigerGirl7]

If the client says he wants to reserve the use of tables strictly for tabular data and use CSS Level 2 for all layout, aren't we alienating some pretty commonly used browsers and a lot of Web users?????

 

[stormbind]

How I would like to aproach it:

Q. What would you say to a client in this situation?

A. Here's my line-list of anticipated expenses & time, represting associated risks, and including solicitor to check content for compliance of the Section 508 whatnot. Every aspect of the line-list is open to negotiation.

If they don't like the idea of paying for a solicitory, they can strike it from the line-list and Section 508 won't an issue anymore.

How I would actually aproach it:

Q. What would you say to a client in this situation?

A. Sure, you're the boss. Can I have an advance to cover out-of-pocket expenses?

--Glen

Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[Foamcow]

You missed the point of what I said.

The frills are, by definition, frills.
Core content.. the stuff you are actually selling should NEVER be presented as a frill.

There is a metaphor for accessible (and standards compliant) web design that describes it as an onion.

The core of the onion is your core message.
The layers of the onion each represent extra content. Frills if you like.
Each user agent uses or discards each layer of your onion depending whether or not it can use it.
The fundemental idea being that the core information is viewable to ALL user agents.

Maybe your target audience all have Flash installed. The vast majority of users do. But you began this thread with a question about accessibility. To make a site accessible you must embrace the ideas people are talking about here.

The mistake many people make is that "accessible" means "plain". It doesn't. It simply means applying a bit of thought as to how people will view and use your website. Design and build sites for the user, they should be the single most important consideration for any site.

A good definition of accessibility is

Accessibility involves making allowances for characteristics a person cannot readily change

This could be of a physical nature, but could also mean someone that cannot install a particular plugin for whatever reason. I guess it could even mean someone with a slow or unreliable internet connection.

Another definition might be

To avoid creating unnecessary impediments, for people and devices, to accessing the website's content.

This is the crux, in my opinion.
It's the extras or "frills" that we use to secure a sale that get in the way.

Personally (again) I would dispute your claim that a flash movie on a site will make the difference between someone buying from you and someone not buying from you.
It might help, but only if the site is not strong enough, or the product not good enough. There are thousands of e-commerce sites that don't have a whiff of "frilliness" but sell bucketloads.

Consider Amazon. Extras are employed but they are genuinely useful services to the user. Things like the "customers who liked this also bought... " and the wishlists. All good stuff, all attractive to customers, all helping sales but all useful. I don't see any flash, anything that gets in the way of the reason I am there... to max my credit card again.

This has turned into a bit of an essay. But you will be relieved to hear that I am off now to have a cuppa and watch Enterprise. I'll be back though mwuhahahahaah!

Foamcow Heavy Industries - Web design and ranting
Toccoa Games - Day of Defeat gaming community
Target Marketing Communications - Advertising, Direct Marketing and Public Relations
"I'm making time

 

[Foamcow]

Incidentally....


"strict XHTML" is well defined by the W3C. There is no possible ambiguity there. The code either complies or it doesn't.

Foamcow Heavy Industries - Web design and ranting
Toccoa Games - Day of Defeat gaming community
Target Marketing Communications - Advertising, Direct Marketing and Public Relations
"I'm making time

 

[kaht]

http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/abridgedcsssupport.html

http://www.jessett.com/web_sites/css/css_browser_support.shtml

Here's some charts of CSS2 compatibility in common browsers. Which "commonly used browsers" are you refering to that are being "alienated" by using CSS2?

-kaht

...looks like you don't have a job, so why don't you get out there and feed Tina.

 

[stormbind]

If the client says he wants to reserve the use of tables strictly for tabular data and use CSS Level 2 for all layout, aren't we alienating some pretty commonly used browsers and a lot of Web users?????

Can those users can still browse the site without difficulty?

Afaik, all CSS1 is included in CSS2. Does his requirement force you to use at least one CSS2-only feature?

The table issue would prompt me to quote more time. NN4 was the only browser that had trouble with tables.

--Glen

Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[stormbind]

Foamcow made a very valuable post. Far more articulate than myself

In marketing, the primary objectives are:

1) Keep it simple. Frills distract from your message. Confusion over what you are selling loses customers.

2) Make it personal. You are offering them an exclusive service - even if you are not, that is how to word it.

3) Repeat the pitch. Don't ramble about tanjenial issues and lose sight of the sale (I am prone to messing that up).

4) Encourage immediate response. Give a sense of urgency and provide them with a means to react there and then.

There is an old saying: "one good picture is worth a thousand words", and I have never disputed that, but I like to bring attention to the word one

I like to apply marketing concepts to webdesign.

--Glen

Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[TigerGirl7]

OK

Strict Accessibility Compliance insists that I abandon the use of Tables and format my pages with CSS. Won't doing so alienate many people whos browsers are incompatible with this strategy????

Isn't there a contradiction with "Browser Compatibility" and "Standards Compliance"???

 

[Vragabond]

You are not alienating anyone. You're just taking away the frills (see FoamCow's post). CSS positioning uses semantically correct elements for correct issues -- divs, paragraphs, tables. It uses CSS to present these blocks of information in a pleasing to the eye fashion. However, for older browsers who do not support CSS, the information is shown in a not so pleasing way. But the main point is, it is shown. CSS positioning will be correctly interpreted in most modern browsers and that means over 99% of your people will see the page the way you want it. Those with ancient browsers, or browsers that do not support CSS will not be left out but rather see all the content (core) of your page, but none of the pretty layers. So, who are you excluding then? People who only read pretty stuff?