残疾歧视法 [英] Disability Discrimination Act

问题描述

< http://www.business2www.com/news.html?id = 1217547344>


Precis：残疾歧视法案（DDA）要求企业

和组织使所有用户都可以访问网站，

特别是残疾人。然而，刚果民主共和国，皇家国家研究所
盲人
（RNIB）和皇家国家聋人研究所

（RNID），网站可访问性的假定标准承担者，

即使是最基本的A / AA要求也会继续失败。调查结果

和SiteMorse的报告显示，例如，

DRC的网站在过去几个月中连续失败了A / AA。
"


[引自我今天收到的SiteMorse新闻稿]

-

1月销售额2005年 - 优惠&优惠券 - < http://www.ThisBritain.com/January-Sales-2005/>

找到您的手机：< http://www.bizorg.co.uk/news .html>

<http://www.business2www.com/news.html?id=1217547344>

Precis: "The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires businesses
and organisations to make websites accessible to all users,
particularly the disabled. Yet the DRC, the Royal National Institute
for the Blind (RNIB) and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf
(RNID), the supposed standard bearers for website accessibility,
continue to fail even the most basic A/AA requirements. The findings
and the reports produced by SiteMorse showed, for example, that the
DRC?s website failed both A / AA continually over the last few months.
"

[quoted from SiteMorse Press Release that I received today]
--
January Sales 2005 - Offers & Coupons - <http://www.ThisBritain.com/January-Sales-2005/>
Locate your Mobile phone: <http://www.bizorg.co.uk/news.html>

推荐答案

David Quinton< us **************** @ REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co。 UK>写道：

David Quinton <us****************@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk> wrote:

< http：//www.business2www.com/news.html？id = 1217547344>

Precis：残疾歧视法 （DDA）要求企业和组织使所有用户都可以访问网站，特别是残疾人。然而，刚果民主共和国，皇家国家盲人研究所（RNIB）和皇家国家聋人研究所（RNID），网站可访问性的标准承担者，甚至继续失败最基本的A / AA要求。例如，SiteMorse发布的调查报告显示，DRC的网站在过去几个月内连续失败了A / AA。


[引自我今天收到的SiteMorse新闻稿]

<http://www.business2www.com/news.html?id=1217547344>

Precis: "The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires businesses
and organisations to make websites accessible to all users,
particularly the disabled. Yet the DRC, the Royal National Institute
for the Blind (RNIB) and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf
(RNID), the supposed standard bearers for website accessibility,
continue to fail even the most basic A/AA requirements. The findings
and the reports produced by SiteMorse showed, for example, that the
DRC?s website failed both A / AA continually over the last few months.
"

[quoted from SiteMorse Press Release that I received today]

是的，我也得到了它。


SiteMorse是一个非常有趣的装备。他们对标准很苛刻，但是最近在2004年9月，他们的技术总监是如此的b $ b无法阅读DTD，他坚持认为目标是

属性没有被弃用。
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...00f0090262b066

Google网上论坛搜索sitemore会发现其他一些好东西。


虽然刚果民主共和国等地的网站存在一些问题，但肯定会因为大多数自动化测试而无法获得b / b


SiteMorse执行的排序只能是任何

辅助功能检查的一部分。


人体测试更重要，可以告诉你什么时候忽略

指南 - 当涉及真实用户测试真实的

残疾时，我会把DRC或RNIB带到SiteMor上任何一天。


史蒂夫


-

我的理论给你起见，我的异端邪说激怒了你，

我从不回信，你也不喜欢我的领带。 - 医生


Steve Pugh< st *** @ pugh.net> < http://steve.pugh.net/>

Yeah, I got it too.

SiteMorse are a very funny outfit. They bleat on about standards but
as recently as September 2004 their technical director was so
incapable of reading a DTD that he maintained that the target
attribute wasn''t deprecated.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...00f0090262b066

A Google Groups search for sitemore will turn up some other goodies.

Whilst the DRC, etc. sites have some problems and can certainly be
imprived they are more accessible that most and automated testing of
the sort that SiteMorse carry out can only be one part of any
accessibility check.

Human testing is more important and can tell you when to ignore the
guidelines - and when it comes to testing with real users with real
disabilities I''d take the DRC or the RNIB over SiteMorse any day.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don''t like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

David Quinton< us **************** @ REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk>写道：

David Quinton <us****************@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk> writes:

< http：//www.business2www.com/news.html？id = 1217547344>

Precis：残疾歧视法案（DDA）要求企业
和组织使所有用户都可以访问网站，特别是残疾人。然而，刚果民主共和国，皇家国家盲人研究所（RNIB）和皇家国家聋人研究所（RNID），网站可访问性的标准承担者，甚至继续失败最基本的A / AA要求。例如，SiteMorse的调查报告和报告显示，在过去的几个月里，DRC的网站连续A / AA都失败了。


[引自我今天收到的SiteMorse新闻稿]

<http://www.business2www.com/news.html?id=1217547344>

Precis: "The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires businesses
and organisations to make websites accessible to all users,
particularly the disabled. Yet the DRC, the Royal National Institute
for the Blind (RNIB) and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf
(RNID), the supposed standard bearers for website accessibility,
continue to fail even the most basic A/AA requirements. The findings
and the reports produced by SiteMorse showed, for example, that the
DRC''s website failed both A / AA continually over the last few months.
"

[quoted from SiteMorse Press Release that I received today]

我有兴趣听听RNIB失败的要求。没什么可以乍一看很明显，除非你算上一个事实，即每个网站存在或者可以存在的情况下，文本都不是
$

*绝对客观地*非常清楚。但是，那就是IMO，这个指南的使用方法有些不好，而不是WAI的意图。根据指南的解释，是的，

未通过AA。


DRC，是的，有一些选择不当的替代文字，这将被视为a

失败。


当然，它不像SiteMorse通过AA（尝试加倍文本

大小，有一种形式可以在没有警告的情况下打开一个新窗口，它可能

不是固定宽度但最小宽度很大，''点击这里

你的' '作为一个很好的无上下文链接文本）或A就此而言

（ http://www.business2www.com/sitemorse/tests.html - 你不能告诉我

甚至接近最合适语言）。


但是，继续发布新闻稿的其他一些文字：


他似乎放置了可用性

通过人工交互进行测试，符合Web可访问性要求。 ;


嗯，是的 - 不管你信不信，网站被人类浏览，而不是通过

指南文件浏览。使用真正的

人进行一点可用性测试可能会帮助Sitemorse网站不会出现上述问题我们上面提到的这些问题。


当他在电话交谈中推断出来时，他引起了混乱。

没有关于网站可访问性的法律标准，即使有多少份DRC演讲和文件（包括在

Guardian中做出的评论明确指出，对于组织和

企业来说，使其网站可以访问英国的800万到1000万

残疾人。


也完全正确。 IANAL，但我对法律的解读表明，法庭判定数百万英镑的b $ b公司必须遵守WAI-A是合理的。在每一页都有WAI-AA，而

a角落商店只需要遵守WAI-A，因为预计它花费相同的金额是不合理的。用户测试，

等所以这是一个法律义务，没有指定的切断，只是

做出诚实的最佳努力并放弃抱怨。 />

DRC和RNIB都怀疑自动化

测试的有效性和准确性，即使SiteMorse是该领域的专家 -
已进行研究并收到客户反馈，显示其

客户已对其网站进行了重大改进，因为使用

该公司的网络辅助功能测试工具。


嗯，是的，自动化测试可以*帮助*改善网站，提供一些

智能用于备份结果，但它不能帮助修复

一切。但他们知道这一点，如果你看一下
http：/ /www.business2www.com/keymorse/


虽然可能没有法律义务使网站可用，但有一个

使残疾人可以访问网站的法律义务。那些忽视这一点的人可能会发现自己在法庭上被指控为

歧视。


再次，是的，一个网站，对于没有人合法的工作是合法的，并且一半的人工作的网站是b $ b，但是可用性和可访问性

无论如何都是密切相关的。


此外，我会说一个很容易被

残疾人使用的网站（通过用户测试证明）更可能是

比一个经过少量测试的网站更容易获得，但是b / b
客观地满足（一个人的解释）一套

可访问性指南。 />

我会在一个网站上测试他们的网站检查工作，我已经做了详细的

（手动和自动）辅助功能研究，看看它是什么我认为，

但我是3个代理服务器后面的10,000个用户之一，所以每4天每个

IP进行一次测试就会受到影响。


-

Chris

I''d be interested to hear which A requirement RNIB failed. Nothing
obvious at a first glance, unless you count the fact that, in common
with every website that exists or can exist, the text is not
*absolutely and objectively* the very clearest possible. But that''s,
IMO, a bit of bad wording in/usage of the guidelines, and not what the
WAI intended. Depending on interpretation of the guidelines, yes it
fails AA.

DRC, yes, there''s some poorly chosen alt text, which would count as an
A failure.

Of course, it''s not like SiteMorse passes AA either (try doubling text
size, there''s a form that opens a new window without warning, it may
not be fixed width but the minimum width is huge, ''click here for
yours'' as a nice context-free link text) or A for that matter
(http://www.business2www.com/sitemorse/tests.html - you can''t tell me
that''s even close to clearest appropriate language).

But, carrying on to some of the other text of the press release:

"He seemed to place usability
testing through human interaction above web accessibility compliance."

Well, yes - believe it or not, sites are browsed by humans, not by
guideline documents. A little bit of usability testing with real
people might have helped the Sitemorse site not get those problems I
mentioned above.

"He caused confusion when he inferred in a telephone conversation that
there are no legal standards for website accessibility, even though a
number of DRC speeches and documents (including comments made in the
Guardian) clearly state that it is a legal duty for organisations and
businesses to make their sites accessible to the UK''s 8-10 million
disabled people."

Also entirely true. IANAL, but my reading of the law suggests that it
would be reasonable for a court to decide that multi-million-pound
corp would have to comply with WAI-A and WAI-AA on every page, whereas
a corner shop would only have to comply with WAI-A due to it being
unreasonable to expect it to spend the same amount on user testing,
etc. So it''s a legal duty, no there isn''t a specified cut off, just
make honest best efforts and quit complaining.

"Both the DRC and the RNIB doubt the validity and accuracy of automated
testing, even though SiteMorse - which is a specialist in this field -
has conducted research and received client feedback that shows its
clients have made significant improvements to their sites since using
the company''s web accessibility testing tools."

Well, yes, automated testing can *help* improve sites, provided some
intelligence is used to back up the results, but it can''t help fix
everything. They''re aware of that, though, if you look at
http://www.business2www.com/keymorse/

"While there may be no legal duty to make a site usable, there is a
legal duty to make websites accessible to disabled people. Those
that ignore this could find themselves in court accused of
discrimination."

Again, true, a site that works for no-one is legal and a site that
works for half the people isn''t, but then usability and accessibility
are closely related anyway.

Besides, I would say a site that was easily usable by people with a
range of disabilities (as proven by user testing) as more likely to be
accessible than a site that had undergone little testing but
objectively met (one person''s interpretation of) a set of
accessibility guidelines.

I''d test their site checker on a site that I''ve done a detailed
(manual and automatic) accessibility study on, to see what it thinks,
but I''m one of 10,000ish users behind 3 proxy servers, so the 1 test per
IP every 4 days gets in the way.

--
Chris

Steve Pugh< st *** @ pugh.net>写道：

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> writes:

SiteMorse是一个非常有趣的装备。他们对标准很不满，但是就在2004年9月，他们的技术总监如此无法阅读DTD，他认为目标
属性并没有被弃用。
http：// groups-beta。 google.com/group/...00f0090262b066

目标属性有点像异常。它不在

严格的DTD中，但它也没有标记在HTML 4散文中的任何地方，因为

已被弃用。

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/ attributes.html 仅将其列为

宽松，但不是已弃用。唯一的另一个属性是真的

for''width''应用于< iframe> （因为< iframe>在元素列表中以相同的方式表现在

中，这是有道理的）


当然，你可以采取

<！ -

这是HTML 4.01 Strict DTD，它排除了演示文稿

属性和W3C期望逐步淘汰的元素

对样式表的支持逐渐成熟。

....等


表示规范*应该*已将其标记为已弃用但

不是由于错误造成的。

人体测试更重要，可以告诉你何时忽略
指南 - 以及何时进行测试真正的用户有真正的残疾我会在任何一天带着DRC或RNIB通过SiteMorse。

SiteMorse are a very funny outfit. They bleat on about standards but
as recently as September 2004 their technical director was so
incapable of reading a DTD that he maintained that the target
attribute wasn''t deprecated.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...00f0090262b066
The target attribute is a bit of an anomaly, though. It''s not in the
Strict DTD, but neither is it marked anywhere in the HTML 4 prose as
deprecated.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html lists it as only in
loose, but not as deprecated. The only other attribute this is true
for is ''width'' when applied to <iframe> (and since <iframe> behaves in
the same way in the elements list, this makes sense)

Of course, you could take
<!--
This is HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, which excludes the presentation
attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
support for style sheets matures.
.... etc

as meaning that the spec *should* have marked it as deprecated but
doesn''t due to an error.
Human testing is more important and can tell you when to ignore the
guidelines - and when it comes to testing with real users with real
disabilities I''d take the DRC or the RNIB over SiteMorse any day.

绝对。

-

Chris

Absolutely.

--
Chris

这篇关于残疾歧视法的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！