I was aware that doing this the right way, that is, the way that makes the information accessible to the most users is more work than your quick posting of a link to a document download and then letting the user do the work. Or not be able to read it at all.
It is also painfully obvious that the available people to work on the front end of any of your sites is a count on one hand number.
But thank you for your comment which is the single best illustration I've seen in a while of why accessibility and usability begin in the very foundation of an organization.
Accessibility has to be in the mind of the creators of a site. All of them. It has to be there when you first think up a new feature or a new project. It has to be there when you talk about the professional development of your volunteers and "staffers". Of course, you have to actually promote professional development in the first place. It sure sounds like you're relying on what your volunteers know the day they sign up.
You, the OTW, are stuck on adding on accessibility as a feature later, when you get the time, when all the important things are done first. When it doesn't interfere with the way you've always done it. When someone volunteers who already knows more than how to run up a Livejournal post. I know you're really proud that you've made your sites work (mostly) with screen readers, but that's not accessibility. Clearly, you see accessibility as a barrier to development and as an optional enhancement.
You have chosen to do this. You have made the institutional choice to not provide accessible web services but to pretend you'll totally get to it some day. Is it too late now for you to ever change your attitude?
Comment on Proposed Content Policy ToS and FAQ changes
Nonny Quixote (Guest) Wed 21 Aug 2013 01:51PM UTC
Comment Actions