One companies policy on DDA compliance can affect many...

Shoseki · 10 Apr 2006 at 17:15

I am going to keep my company anonymous, but we use Actinic software to do our backend website management etc. As the web developer responsible for the website, and being a passionate DDA supporter, I am disappointed to see this is the policy of the software developers :

http://www.actinic.co.uk/products/access_standards.htm

Is it just me or is this a complete load of rubbish? "DDA was only designed to stop websites that only use images or flash" it tells the people who use their software.

I am struggling currently to force the templates into some accessible form... any comments?

Bearing in mind that this software is used by many...

Al Vallario · 10 Apr 2006 at 17:57

Shoseki said:
Is it just me or is this a complete load of rubbish? "DDA was only designed to stop websites that only use images or flash" it tells the people who use their software.

Actinic said:
It is worth stating, in conclusion, that the sort of sites which organisations like the RNIB are really critical of are sites that are purely driven by Flash, or sites which are nothing but images.

It's clear from that page, and their website as a whole, that Actinic know little about web standards or usability (I'd like to say they know just as much about making ecommerce software, but I'm not one to comment). They don't, however, use the word "only" as you quoted them using; they merely point out that the DDA is "really critical" of flash and image-based websites, which as far as I know is perfectly true.

From what I've seen (Baring in mind I'm not a huge Actinic fan, or of commercialised ecommerce solutions as a whole), Actinic outputs some pretty awful code. They probably get a lot of enquiries from businesses who have heard about the DDA, and send them to that page with a resounding "Don't worry, our products output awful code but it's not as bad as using a flash or image-based website" message

Shoseki · 12 Apr 2006 at 11:39

I am one error away from DDA level 2 compliancy, which as far as I understand, is further than any other Actinic based website (unless specifically designed). Took me a long time to work with the templates to do it though.

Level 3 is a toughy, don't know yet whether it is worth pursuing, but most of my websites are lvl 3.

nav... · 12 Apr 2006 at 12:04

out of interest, what would being level 3 achieve over level 2?

Shoseki · 13 Apr 2006 at 12:27

nav... said:
out of interest, what would being level 3 achieve over level 2?

Its mostly for my own personal and professional evaluation, to make it as compatible as possible. When I write c++, the compiler checks the code for me, and if it doesn't compile, it doesn't compile. Using these type of web checks, I can have the best possible chance of reaching the highest number of people and setting off the least number of DDA alarm bells.

Unless striving to be the best isn't something that people pursue in business any more...

ChipPanFire · 13 Apr 2006 at 21:54

The Actinic stuff is a little self serving, but may not be too far from the truth. Webcrdible are staffed by people who know their accessibility, so if they have lent their name to the remarks about Actinic's accessibility then it's probably OK (I'm unfamiliar with their software so I can't comment in detail).

The stuff about Flash, images, Bobby et al is cobblers, though.

A good WAI conformance level to aim for is AA. But best of all is getting the thing tested by human testers, including people who use assistive technology.

I applaud your principles, and I admire anyone who goes for AAA compliance, but in a commercial site of any complexity that level of compliance is pretty much impossible to achieve and is not really necessary. I'd aim for AA and some of the more sensible AAA pointers.