Yay, Dutch lawmakers!
While this post over at Quirksmode notes that a new Dutch law requires websites to be accessible (which isn’t new news in many jurisdictions including the USA and Australia), what it does do that is new is stipulate what it takes for that accessibility to be met:
- valid HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0
- CSS and semantic HTML and separation of structure and presentation
- progressive enhancement
- the W3C DOM (instead of the old Microsoft
document.all)- meaningful values of
classandid- meaningful
altattributes on all imagesFurthermore:
- scripts that work on links should extend the basic link functionality (think accessible popups)
- if a link makes no sense without a script, it shouldn’t be in the HTML (but be generated by JavaScript)
- use of forms or scripts as the only means of getting certain information is prohibited
- removing the focus rectangle on links is prohibited
- information offered in a closed format (think Word) should also be offered in an open format
- the semantics of many HTML elements are explicitly defined
New government websites must comply with these guidelines. Existing government websites must be converted to the new guidelines before 2011.
This is all incredibly smart stuff and obviously has been thought through by people who have more than a basic clue about what they are doing. It should be applauded. The Australian law has a lot of catching up to do.
If you work in the web dev industry, all these are things you should already be doing for every site you build, not just government sites. Failing to do so is just lazy development.
It still amazes me the number of sites I see here in Australia, and from overseas that dismally fail even the most basic of accessibility tests. So, what are some of the most accessible sites you’ve seen? And the least accessible? Post links to your own work here for brag value.
Thanks to Ajaxian for the link.
{ 1 trackback }