PAS78

With very little fanfare (that I've come across anyway), the Disability
Rights Commission and the British Standards Institute have released 'PAS
78 - Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites'
(http://www.bsi-global.com/PAS78/index.html). I'm guessing this is something
along the lines of Section 508, but since this 'publicly available
specification' is not really publicly available yet [costs £30], it's hard
to tell. I look forward to more information becoming available in time...

Anybody got a copy or know any thing more?

Chris

I've discovered a bit more, which reveals some interesting detail...

http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3242

"CJM" <cjmnews04 (AT) REMOVEMEyahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in news:47an2bFelskbU1
@individual.net:

I've discovered a bit more, which reveals some interesting detail...

http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3242

Instead of posting an URL to a big long thread, perhaps you could have
summarized it for everyone on this group?



--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

"CJM" <cjmnews04 (AT) REMOVEMEyahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

With very little fanfare (that I've come across anyway), the Disability
Rights Commission and the British Standards Institute have released 'PAS
78 - Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites'
(http://www.bsi-global.com/PAS78/index.html).

Presumably a response to
http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp published in
2004 which noted the ignorance amongst people who commission web sites.

Reading between the lines I fear that PAS78 is yet another example of
approaching accessibility by abandoning proper semantic authoring in
favour of creating ridiculous constructs aimed at appeasing the current
generation of AT software such as Jaws, Window-Eyes and IBM Homepage
Reader.

Understandably these products are aimed at coping with the web as it is
found in the wild. Regrettably this also means that they are forming a
serious obstacle for moving things to a higher plane.

I wasn't surprised to see "using the current software-based compliance
testing tools" being promoted. Such tools used by the typical level of
people who commission web sites is likely to do more harm than good.

Neither was it a surprise to see that the seminar contains a lecture by
the IT manager of tesco.com. A quick look at that site illustrates
nicely the awful and misguided crap that is being generated by followers
of these initiatives.

I say sod Jaws, Window-Eyes and IBM Homepage Reader, code to a higher
standard and leave it to AT software to catch up.

--
Spartanicus

Karl Groves wrote:

http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3242

Instead of posting an URL to a big long thread, perhaps you could have
summarized it for everyone on this group?

It's a document for _commissioning_ web site development, not for the
nuts and bolts developers.

I see this as a good thing. People who care about accessibility either
know how to do it, or are regularly pointed in the right directions.
The real problem with poor accessibility is at present is that big
businesses outsource web design with a brief that emphasises "flashy"
more than "accessible". It's the PHB's who need to be educated, not the
code-monkeys.

I'm too cynical to expect a BSI publication to fix much, or even to be
noticed. But it's a useful step, and I support this emphasis on the
originators writng the design briefs, not the coders.

"Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote

Instead of posting an URL to a big long thread, perhaps you could have
summarized it for everyone on this group?

Say what??!

Read it yourself if you are interested. Don't, if are not.

CJM

"CJM" <cjmnews04 (AT) REMOVEMEyahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in news:47b765Feqtf8U1
@individual.net:

"Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9781533A2AE53karlkarlcorecom (AT) 216 (DOT) 196.97.136...

Instead of posting an URL to a big long thread, perhaps you could have
summarized it for everyone on this group?



Say what??!

Read it yourself if you are interested. Don't, if are not.

You started this thread and asked if other people knew any more about this
thing. Then, you went and found your answer elsewhere. That's great. But
now it would be the good & courteous thing to post some form of summary for
the benefit of others *here*. At least that's the way I see it.


--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

"Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote

"CJM" <cjmnews04 (AT) REMOVEMEyahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in news:47b765Feqtf8U1
@individual.net:


"Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9781533A2AE53karlkarlcorecom (AT) 216 (DOT) 196.97.136...

Instead of posting an URL to a big long thread, perhaps you could have
summarized it for everyone on this group?



Say what??!

Read it yourself if you are interested. Don't, if are not.

You started this thread and asked if other people knew any more about this
thing. Then, you went and found your answer elsewhere. That's great. But
now it would be the good & courteous thing to post some form of summary
for
the benefit of others *here*. At least that's the way I see it.

I think you have a point. Publish a quick two or three line summary, and if
people want more info they can go and read it at the URL. If not, they don't
have to.

"Karl Groves" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote

You started this thread and asked if other people knew any more about this
thing. Then, you went and found your answer elsewhere. That's great. But
now it would be the good & courteous thing to post some form of summary
for
the benefit of others *here*. At least that's the way I see it.

Hmmm... needless to say I saw things differently...

I posted this to make those people aware who are interested in this area, to
perhaps start a discussion, not because I desperately need to know anything.
I found one post somewhere which gives a bit of unofficial background, but
doesnt completely explain all there is to know about PAS78 - so I'm still
looking for more (purely out of interest).

The forum post I quoted can't be summed up in 3 lines, but might shed a
little bit of light to those who read the whole thing. Those who are not
interested can safely ignore. Needless to say, there is still a lot more to
find out, and I'm sure we will in time.

What is more, summarising everything rather than pointing people to the
original source is the quickest way to take meaning and context out of the
equation, and potentially reduce and interesting topic (to some) into a
meaningless sound-bite.

So to summarise this thread:

No, I dont have my 'answer'.
No, a summary would not have been meaningful.
No, I can't afford any more time to squabble about nothing.

</end of thread>

CJM

Spartanicus wrote:

"CJM" <cjmnews04 (AT) REMOVEMEyahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

With very little fanfare (that I've come across anyway), the Disability
Rights Commission and the British Standards Institute have released 'PAS
78 - Guide to Good Practice in Commissioning Accessible Websites'
(http://www.bsi-global.com/PAS78/index.html).

Presumably a response to
http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp published in
2004 which noted the ignorance amongst people who commission web sites.

Correct. The DRC identified that websites owners lacked a framework or
basis for requesting accessible websites. The quote from the DRC is
that website commissioners (those that pay for the creation of
websites) have the responsibility for the accessibility of their
website. They can delegate the responsibility to web design agencies,
but they cannot abdicate that responsibility.

With PAS78 there's no reason a website commissioner within the UK can
have for not commissioning a new website that isn't accessible.

Reading between the lines I fear that PAS78 is yet another example of
approaching accessibility by abandoning proper semantic authoring in
favour of creating ridiculous constructs aimed at appeasing the current
generation of AT software such as Jaws, Window-Eyes and IBM Homepage
Reader.

No. The document fully embraces valid HTML, CSS layouts, unobtrusive
JavaScript and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. There are
problems with assistive technology, as you've noticed. The PAS guidance
is that web developers should do the job properly with web standards,
and they do not have to cover up and work around weaknesses and
problems in browsers and assistive technologies. Its suggested that it
would be a good idea, at least until assistive technologies correct
themselves, but it is not mandated.

Understandably these products are aimed at coping with the web as it is
found in the wild. Regrettably this also means that they are forming a
serious obstacle for moving things to a higher plane.

True. Which is why PAS is recommending web standards based development,
including WCAG (with all its warts).

I wasn't surprised to see "using the current software-based compliance
testing tools" being promoted. Such tools used by the typical level of
people who commission web sites is likely to do more harm than good.

The direction of the DRC is clear - rote tick-box approach to WCAG will
not result in an accessible website. Developers need to do two things:

1.) Understand how people with disabilities use the web
2.) Understand the reasons behind the checkpoints in WCAG

Its recommending a thoughtful based approach to web accessibility.
Automated testing tools can spot a few types of accessibility errors,
and for that reason they are useful in a few cases - but not as a
complete means of testing the accessibility of a website.

Expert evaluations and/or usability testing with disabled people are
the recommended approach.

Neither was it a surprise to see that the seminar contains a lecture by
the IT manager of tesco.com. A quick look at that site illustrates
nicely the awful and misguided crap that is being generated by followers
of these initiatives.

It wasn't a lecture, it was a case study. With an investment of
£35,000 for the accessible version of Tesco website, they generated
revenue of £13 million over a year. TescoAccess may not be the perfect
example of an accessible website, but its accessible enough to get the
job done. Despite its problems, its given blind shoppers, for example,
a much easier way of shopping at Tesco.

You'd note that the Steering Group of the PAS contains a big cross
section of UK industry and sectors, including education. The Review
Group contained about 120 organisations from all main sectors,
including grassroots organisations promoting web standards based
approach to development. (The typical size of PAS Review groups is
about 50).