One World, One Web 一个世界一个网络 But Great Diversity.pptVIP

* In the Commissioning Web Sites the evidence shows the popularity of WCAG-based logos (WCAG A/AA/AA Compliant, Bobby, ..). We know a focus on logos can be a problem What should we do? Discourage use of logos? Explore alternative approaches? Alternative approaches may include: Focus on quality workflow processes, rather than the resources (cf ISO 9001 standard for quality assurance). The BSI PAS 78 on “Commissioning Accessible Web Sites” provides an example of this approach. * There are some limitations to our approaches: Developers may prefer hard objective rules. The difficulties in identifying ‘reasonable measures’. Institutional policies based on old approaches. Ego invested in existing approaches (“I’ll never use any trendy JavaScript on my site”). Ways of addressing these challenges include: Drawing parallels with other areas, such as how to develop good teaching materials. WCAG 1.0 as ‘training wheels’ - once principles mastered, more flexibility approaches can be taken. Sharing experiences, best practices (and problems) with peers. * To conclude: Previous work on identifying the limitations of ‘Web accessibility 1.0’ is now becoming accepted. Deployment of WCAG 2.0 provides an opportunity to promote more flexible approaches. We hope paper has provided examples of such flexibility. UKOLN is supported by: One World, One Web ... But Great Diversity Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath UK Email: B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk About This Paper: This paper builds on previous work on holistic approaches to Web accessibility. The need for a user-centred, rather than resource-centred, approach is described. Application of this approach in various contexts, including Web 2.0, is described. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2008/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Tag ‘w4a-2008 Co-Authors: Liddy Nevile, EA Draffan and Sotiris Fanou by-nc-sa * Previous Work (1) Limitations of