The Australian Broadcasting Corporation launched “ABC Mobile” yesterday
The ABC advertises for staff who have a knowledge of web accessibility and web standards and so would know its obligations.
The site also fails several mobile phone and other web guidelines. As well as the mobile phone compatible web site, there are Apple iPhone and Google Android applications offered. However, the ABC should have put its resources into the basic site, rather than building nice to have, but non-essential features.
A test using the Test Accessibility Web tool (TAW 3.0 3/16/09 10:15 PM) against the WAI guidelines (W3C Recommendation 5 May 1999) reported: 1 Priority 1, 14 Priority 2 and 1 Priority 3 problems with the page
The W3C mobileOK Checker gave the home page of the new site 79/100 on mobile compatible tests. This would be a good result for an ordinary web site but is poor for a site specifically designed for mobile phones. The web page is designed for smart phones with large screens (about 3 inches and QVGA resolution) and would be difficult to use on an ordinary mobile phone. The page is 38KB: 9KB for the text and 29KB of images, which is too “heavy” for a mobile (W3C recommend 20 kbytes). There are 15 files required to be downloaded (the HTML and 14 images), whereas W3C recommends a maximum of 10. There are numerous errors reported with the HTML coding of the web site.
With its mobile service, the ABC had the opportunity to not only provide a general news and entertainment service but one which would be of use in emergencies, such as bushfire and floods. However, by not correctly designing the service, the ABC has limited its usefulness.
Currently I am teaching mobile and accessible web design to second year and postgraduate students at The Australian National University in the course “Networked Information Systems” (COMP2410). The ABC home page would not be of an acceptable standard for student work on
this course
In regards to sites, which are not developed for sight impared users (trust me there are many) makes a lot of sense just not for accesability reasons.
One good side effect is it will help in getting better rankings in the many search engines.
But it seems that most web developers have forgotton alt tags these days.
Jumping Jesus on a f$cking pogo stick. What a massive whinge about absolutely nothing. For a start, no-one uses ‘ordinary’ mobile phones to view this stuff on, the design has to be tailored to smart phones with large screens. Secondly, no-one gives two shakes about ‘alt-text’, it’s so ridiculously unimportant. I’d be surprised that the article bangs on about it so much.
Except for the fact that Tom Worthington is a well known annoying crank. If he’d actually spent some time being involved with IT and communication design and development instead of imperiously claiming that everyone is ‘unlawful’ then he might be worth listening to. Sadly, he hasn’t. He’s applied the ‘unlawful’ tag to just about every web site he’s ever visited (apparently the internet is ‘unlawful’).
Please Crikey – leave this sort of stuff to Stilgherrian and spare us the pain.
Alt text for images matters a lot to the blind. Including it is not a big ask.
They appear to have fixed the lack of alt text for the images used for a menu on the front page.
x