<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Beatnic - just wondering &#187; DDA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beatnic.co.uk/tag/dda/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.beatnic.co.uk</link>
	<description>Questions and observations from Nic Price. Curious about how things work and what it&#039;s like to use them.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:40:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>SharePoint and Web Accessibility</title>
		<link>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2008/04/18/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2008/04/18/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nic Price</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharepoint]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2008/04/18/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Bruce Lawson, a web accessibility expert working in the legal sector, Sharepoint fails to meet one of the priority 1 requirements (which must be met), and breaks some priority two requirements (which should be met). See Bruce Lawson’s &#8230; <a href="http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2008/04/18/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Bruce Lawson, a web accessibility expert working in the legal sector, Sharepoint fails to meet one of the priority 1 requirements (which must be met), and breaks some priority two requirements (which should be met).</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2008/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/">Bruce Lawson’s personal site  : SharePoint and Web Accessibility</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2008/04/18/sharepoint-and-web-accessibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Britain&#8217;s online newspapers accessibility scores &#8211; should do better</title>
		<link>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2007/11/20/britains-online-newspapers-accessibility-scores-should-do-better/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2007/11/20/britains-online-newspapers-accessibility-scores-should-do-better/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nic Price</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currybetdotnet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Belam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspaper websites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[readability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[results]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uk newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2007/11/20/britains-online-newspapers-accessibility-scores-should-do-better/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today Martin Belam publishes the scores from his excellent series of articles looking at the accessibility of the UK&#8217;s main national newspaper websites. The Times came out on top, even though it makes no use of an on-screen text-resizing widget, &#8230; <a href="http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2007/11/20/britains-online-newspapers-accessibility-scores-should-do-better/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today <a href="http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/11/newspaper_accessibility.php">Martin Belam publishes the scores from his excellent series of articles looking at the accessibility of the UK&#8217;s main national newspaper websites</a>.</p>
<p>The Times came out on top, even though it makes no use of an on-screen text-resizing widget, nor of accesskeys as shortcuts for keyboard users.</p>
<blockquote><p>Overall my conclusion has to be that only a couple of newspapers are taking seriously any obligation to make their services accessible. I was particularly concerned by The Sun and the Daily Mail using CAPTCHA technology with no alternative for users with accessibility issues, but the general pattern for most papers was quite poor. Many are putting completely unneccessary barriers in the way of people reaching their content by making simple decisions like using fixed font sizes, and not including &#8216;skip navigation&#8217; links.<br />
[source: <a href="http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/11/newspaper_accessibility.php">currybetdotnet</a>]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The results are worrying but not surprising. And as Martin says, he&#8217;s still really only &#8220;scratching the surface&#8221; in his tests.</p>
<p>Sadly all too few website managers understand their obligations as far as accessibility and the law is concerned. <a href="http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml">Webcredible have a useful summary here</a>, but in a nutshell <strong>you can be sued</strong> if you do not make reasonable adjustments to provide equal access to your content to everyone.</p>
<blockquote><p>The RNIB has approached two large companies with regard to their websites. When they raised the accessibility issues of the websites under the DDA, both companies made the necessary changes, rather than facing the prospect of legal action (in exchange for anonymity).<br />
[source: <a href="http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml">webcredible</a>]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People really shouldn&#8217;t need convincing. I wonder if it would make any difference if they realised that by improving the accessibility of their websites, they will also make them more usable and more &#8220;readable&#8221;. And when it comes to the big internet search engines, being readable means being findable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2007/11/20/britains-online-newspapers-accessibility-scores-should-do-better/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

