Is Your Website Accessible?

"Accessible" means usable to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, photosensitivity and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also make your Web content more accessible to the vast majority of users, including older users. It will also enable people to access Web content using many different devices - including a wide variety of assistive technologies."

If you're not sure email us at info@badeyes.com, we'll do a quick Audit and let you know.

Recommended Reading

Web Accessibility for Cognitive Disabilities and Learning Difficulties

By Ian Pouncey
· 4 Aug, 2010

Introduction

Web accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities and learning difficulties is one of the most overlooked subtopics of general web accessibility,
despite it affecting the largest numbers. A large part of it is that there are so many conditions to understand in this area (far more than say visual
or hearing impairments) and a lack of educational information available for learning about it.

In this article we will cover a few of the problems users with cognitive disabilities may have that can affect their ability to use the Web, as well as
the things that developers can do to alleviate these problems and things they should avoid. A lot of what is covered will be well known and common sense to many, but is here for completeness.

Web Accessibility for Cognitive Disabilities and Learning Difficulties- Full Article

The ADA and the Web: Concerns and Misconceptions

July 30, 2010
by Jared Smith

WebAIM is often approached by individuals and organizations concerned about “ADA compliance” of their web site. This is a bit of a misnomer. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 pre-dates and does not address web accessibility at all. That may soon be changing.

The ADA and the Web: Concerns and Misconceptions- Full Article

Accept No Substitutes!

By Geof Collis
Bad Eyes Design & Consulting

For the longest time I’ve was advocating against the Portable Document Format
(PDF), none of them were accessible to my screen reader so I”Settled”
for plain text, to me it was the lesser of evils. At no time did I ever care
for the Microsoft Word format, next to an inaccessible PDF it was just as bad.

Problems With Using Website Validation Services

June 7th, 2010 by Alexander Dawson |

Amongst the basic skills that fledgling designers and developers should know is the art of website validation.

Website validation consists of using a series of tools such as W3C’s Markup Validation Service that can actively seek out and explain the problems and inconsistencies within our work.

While the use of such tools has benefits (in the sense of being an automated fresh pair of eyes), a worrying trend of either over or under-dependence keeps rearing its ugly head.

Problems With Using Website Validation Services- Full Article

How to Make the Web Accessible to Everyone

Carrie Saint Freedman
Thursday 27 May 2010 16:14

Despite a range of legislation and best practice advice, cyberspace is still far from equitable for those of us “non-standard” enough to be using
adaptive or assistive technology.

How to Make the Web Accessible to Everyone- Full Article

Kill Accessibility

May 20 2010
By Gary Barber

Let’s get some reality on the web accessibility debate.

We all know about WCAG 1, we have all at least had a look at the associated checklists. If you are lucky you may have glanced at
WCAG 2.

We all have been developing and designing our sites with semantic content, in compliance with W3C guidelines,
using progressive enhancement for the interactive components, unobtrusive Javascript, and
graceful degradation of the pages for legacy browsers. Maybe used some of the attributes of ARIA.
Sure that’s a no brainer.

We know that doing this will solve most of the accessibility issues. So much so that one would think that the
cause for accessibility and universal design was over. Right?

No, wrong.