Monday, 25th August 2008, 5 Comments »
Does all government created content need to be accessible?
Is the bar to high or even unnecessary?
Sometimes it’s a good idea to stop and reconsider the fundamentals of an idea, movement or rule, in this case this morning I’ve been seriously contemplating the notion that all government created content that gets published on the web should be accessible. By accessible, I mean in a format that does not require an additional browser plugin (such as Silverlight or Flash), additional software (such as a PDF reader or Office) and is semantically marked up in HTML.
The Dance
So often the dance goes like this, an agency simply can’t create an ‘accessible alternative’ because the interactive functionality required can only be delivered by Flash/Javascript/PDF, an accessible alternative will take to much time, money and resource to produce, and/or HTML just isn’t pretty enough for the intended audience. Then usually someone comes along and spoils it all by reminding them that they are a Government agency and the web standards are mandatory. I’m fairly sure this dance happens everyday across every agency in Wellington.
So why are we doing this dance anyway? Clearly public servants and the public at large are being inhibited by the lack of progress in Government sponsored AJAX powered PDFs with embedded Flash by being stifled thanks to SSC and that pesky working group. If TradeMe and Google can have AJAX powered goodness why can’t GuyFawkes2007?
An Answer
I really don’t think I have an answer at this point, in fact the more I think about it the more I question the rational for an accessible alternative for all government sites. So I have a suggestion, why don’t we limit the ‘accessible version’ to only main agency websites where core agency information gets published (cause it only gets published there right?) and all other government created websites, which are for campaigns, can go hog wild?
Really, what could possibly go wrong?
5 Comments to “Does all government created content need to be accessible?”
Hmmm, good question … my answer: yes, all sites should be accessible. I think though that the answer is not in being boring but being creative … I think.
Bloody good question to which I am struggling to argue either way …
I think you’re heading in the right direction. It is the information rather than the design that needs to be accessible. Government agencies need a core website that is little more than a RSS feed spat into semantic HTML with some basic CSS. Non-standard browsers (Lynx, other screen readers . . . IE6) point to this site. It would require very little maintenance from a developer. Then, for everyone else, you have the pretty website. Still semantic, but offering AJAX behaviors, tidbits of unobtrusive Flash, and other elements that make modern websites modern. Everyone’s happy because everyone is able to access the information.
Hi Menance
I blogged on this very subject recently…
“Comparing HTML to Flash is like comparing a comic book to a television cartoon”
It has been interesting moving from a software company who bends over backwards to create accessible HTML/AJAX content, to an agency that does the majority of its work in Flash.
I think both are at extreme ends of the spectrum and we need to find a middle-ground.
Thanks for all you comments. While I agree it’s the information rather than the design that needs to be accessible, and I actually believe you can achieve a lot of the desired effect can be achieved through progressive enhancements and using techniques like Accessible Flash and (*fingers crossed* one day) WAI ARIA.
The issue I see at the moment however, is that the majority of ‘the dance’ is generally based around government content and/or government based facilitation of content that isn’t really what I believe would be considered ‘core information’. For example, should our tax dollars be used to create an HTML equivalent of a Flash based game, when it’s more appropriate that money be used to make sure the SOI is in HTML rather than PDF. Or is there a fundamentally larger question about why we’re allowing government to create content that isn’t really ‘core information’?
[...] public links >> accessible Does all government created content need to be accessible? First saved by blundstone | 1 days ago The Flying Bridge First saved by JamesNintendoNerd | 2 [...]