This is a somewhat tardy announcement, but I'm delighted to be involved with (external site), a new site showcasing the best of accessible websites and proving that accessible != rubbish design. Sort of a StyleGala for accessibility, it's the brainchild of Mike Cherim (external site), and an excellent job he's done, both of the site and of the scheme of ranking (external site) sites.

I'm still toying with the idea of creating an accessibility hall of shame - a showcase of those sites who singularly fail to live up to the standards they claim to have achieved. There's still no shortage of sites who proudly display their WAI badges, and provide flowery accessibility statements rendered in 8px text, and they should be made an example of if you ask me. So, AAA Shame - good idea or not?


AAA Hall of Shame - it's a good idea... do it!

Posted by: Blair Millen at January 23, 2006 12:22 PM

Yeah, I'd back the hall of shame. Only for sites claiming triple-A, though.

I would even go further and say do not publicly criticise someone claiming AAA unless they don't achieve AA.

Then it's only the most blatant cases that get shown up, and someone who has gone pretty far down the line to accessibility (although not as far as they think) is not publicly shamed (although you might still want to tell 'em).

Posted by: JackP at January 23, 2006 2:36 PM

You're right Jack, it would only be about the most blatant abuse of the WCAG. And I'd want it to have at least a positive edge - a hall of redemption for example, for those who have made efforts to improve after being named and shamed.

I think there might be mileage in it, once I've finished my current project I'll firm up the ideas a bit.

Posted by: Dan at January 23, 2006 5:40 PM

I agree displaying AAA and not conforming to AA or even A.

If someones close, don't bag them for trying but not quite getting it right.

Posted by: webecho at January 30, 2006 5:56 PM

I have to agree as well. Especially since AAA is mentioned somewhere on Accessites, and it does (mechanical), but the forms do it in on to pages, and with no aural version, it can't reach AAA manually. It's a strong AA of which I pretty pleased.

Posted by: Mike Cherim at February 6, 2006 4:28 AM

Well, you could start with the W3C on some of their pages they claim Level Triple-A Conformance when clearly they are not using their own grading criteria (on certain prominent pages) that only makes matters worse for those who don't understand WCAG.

Posted by: Robert Wellock at February 7, 2006 4:26 PM

Post a comment

Personal information