This is another work-related moan, I'm afraid, so feel free to pass on by if the vagaries of web site accessibility in the education sector are not of interest to you. They're not really of interest to me, truth be told, but it's part of my job (a very murky, foetid part as you will see) so I am bound to consider it. Unfortunately.
You may have inferred from the above that I am some sort of right-wing bigot who despises disabled (or should that be 'differently abled') people. No - what I take issue with is the way that discussions about accessibility very rapidly descend into hideous nightmares of political correctness which no-one in their right minds can keep up with.
Making web sites accessible. Easy, you may think (if you've read this far and still have a functioning personality). Just keep your site nice and simple, no frilly, pointless animations or graphics and there you are - one completely accessible web site, open to all and enjoyed by all. Not so. SENDA is now law in this country and Uncle Sam's drones have something called Section 508. Both seek to address accessibility of information (amongst other things) and both inhabit this weird bureaucratic hinterland where common sense is poison. They differ in one important respect, however - SENDA is purposely non-proscriptive (presumably telling people what they have to do to obey a new law is not PC - or maybe not conducive to lawyer's bank balances) and Section 508 is. So in the UK, we people tasked with looking at 'accessibility issues' (within education at least) are looking at the 'guidelines' and trying to make sure our sites show that the institutions we work for are 'aware' of these 'issues' and that procedures are in place to ensure such 'awareness' continues and adapts to whatever requirements the institution may face. In the US, they have something called Universal Design, which has seven principles to follow and is, like a lot of US law, being used as a benchmark in the UK - before it becomes law over here, presumably.
This annoys me on several levels, as you might expect. Check out Principle Three - Simple and Intuitive Use ;
"Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level."
(My emphasis). So we are supposed to take into account our users' levels of patience, are we? Will providing an obvious link to an online supplier of Ritalin do the trick, as users whip themselves up into a frenzy within seconds of trying to find the 'contact us' section of our web site for a telephone number so they can ring up for a printed prospectus? It gets better - Principle Four - Perceptible Information ;
"The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities."
(My emphasis again). How is a web site supposed to take into account all its users' 'ambient conditions'? Aren't they the responsibility of the user, or whoever owns the geographical location the user happens to be in? I'm starting to sweat but here's Principle Seven - Size and Space for Approach and Use ;
"Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility."
I'm pretty sure the sites I build and run do not prejudice lard arses - unless by not having a constant stream of messages about how great exercise is counts (actually, looking at the current round of McDonald's ads makes me not so sure about this). I'm also pretty clear that it's not my responsibility whether they're too fat to use a mouse or not.
I've said this for several years and whenever anyone mentions 'accesssibility' to me - I have no argument with the underlying principle of 'accessibility for all'. My only gripe is that no-one seems to have an ounce of common sense about how to implement it. But then we are living in a world where some chap has just broken the world land speed record for the blind in his specially-modified BMW, so evidently the notion of 'common sense' has gone the way of the Penny Black and the half-penny coin - some old people remember it but it isn't used any more.