Relaunched Recovery.gov Fails Accessibility Standards 197
SethGrimes writes with this excerpt from Information Week's Intelligent Enterprise: "Recovery.gov, a showcase government-transparency Web site that relaunched on Monday, fails to meet US federal government Section 508 accessibility standards and accessibility best practices. The non-compliance issues relate to display of data tables — an essential point given the site's promise of 'Data, Data & More Data' — despite on-site compliance claims. Other elements including navigation maps, while compliant, are poorly designed. Sharron Rush, co-founder and executive director of accessibility-advocacy organization Knowbility, goes so far as to state, 'The recovery.gov Web site is a good example of what NOT to do for accessibility in my opinion.' Louise Radnofsky explains in the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog, 'Expectations are high for the site, not least because of its hefty price tag: Smartronix, a Maryland contractor, is being paid $9.5 million for its initial overhaul and is likely to get another $8.5 million to keep the site running through 2014.' Compliance with Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act — a baseline expectation — is a long-standing federal-government requirement for information-systems accessibility to persons with disabilities. The site's accessibility failures — which are shared by another showcase government-transparency site, USAspending.gov — are nonetheless easily seen."
$9.5 million? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, for $9.5 million dollars I think they can afford to hire a web designer that knows how to make a website accessible. I mean, I made a website that was accessible for two cans of mountain dew and what was left of a can of pringles. Looked better too. Then again, I did it for this girl who I really hoped would notice me after (she didn't), so I might have underbid just a bit. Still -- I think I would do better than these guys did. :\
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an incredibly ignorant response. Why should blind people have to settle for shitty data from a shitty website for which they are paying tax dollars?
The web is primarily a textual medium. That you have a browser that uses the markup to create a visual display doesn't make people who either don't have or cannot use such a browser any less important.
It's not like it's very difficult to make web pages accessible. There are well-defined mechanisms to include attributes for common tags so that alternative browsers, such as screen readers, can present the information in a way that the user can understand and navigate.
As a matter of fact, many traffic signals do have audio indicating when it is safe for a blind pedestrian to cross.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:2, Insightful)
God forbid that one of this days you have an accident and loose any of your senses, especially your sight. Only then you may appreciate why there's all this talk of putting beepers on pedestrian crossings, making websites accessible to screen readers, and hell, even putting car-tones on electric cars.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact it is easier to make a site that blind people can use because the task mostly consists of leaving off superfluous crap.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong line of work! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Feds paid nearly 10 million bucks for that I am obviously in the wrong line of work. It looks like something I could knock off in a few weeks with Django and MySQL.
The site does very little if you don't have Flash, BTW. Many pages don't even give you a "You don't have Flash" message. You just get blank white pages. I make a point of not having Flash on my main Linux box, just to see how this tool of the devil is poisoning the net.
...laura
While I will agree with you that 1) many sites can be built more user friendly with less work using the right tools and 2) Flash is evil, you must remember they need to interface with a bunch of legacy government servers to get the data. That's a royal pain in itself.
Cost Analysis (Score:1, Insightful)
Recovery.gov overhaul cost: $9,500,000
Recovery.gov maintenance cost: $8,500,000
Hindering market self-correction: Priceless
How very ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
This stinks.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:5, Insightful)
but, isn't it going a bit far on things that just are naturally aimed for normal people?
I happen to believe that this country's government should do everything possible to help those who want to contribute and be a part of society do so -- normality not withstanding. Most people don't make a choice to go deaf, blind, or become handicapped. It just happens (most of the time). I would feel a lot better going to bed each night if I knew that should such a calamity happen to me, my life wouldn't come to an end literally or figuratively. There's some things that are just humane to do. That's why the rules are there. No, they're not important for you but to someone else it might mean the world.
No, it's not going too far -- it's not going far enough. WHO estimated [afb.org] that in 2002 there were 161 million (about 2.6% of the world population) visually impaired people in the world, of whom 124 million (about 2%) had low vision and 37 million (about 0.6%) were blind. For comparative purposes, it's guessed [arstechnica.com] that Linux commands a 1.7% marketshare on the desktop. Which means, there's more people out there who are blind than use linux -- yet, were I to suggest that support for Linux not be included because it isn't something normal people use or care about, I'd be lynched.
Report 'em! (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but should we also ban manufacturing cars unless they can be safely driven by blind? That's what we are doing with websites right now - every page, no matter how obscure, must be accessible. Just like we might ask blind to take a bus or taxi, we could require providing data as either plain text or machine readable format so that some tools can be used to access it.
Re:Okay (Score:4, Insightful)
No surprise at all. The right-wing anti-Obama crowd once again shows how petty they are... Poor accessibility on a web site? $10M for it? Well, here's an idea... we could give billions and billions to companies with strong ties to the Obama administration, and hide everything behind a vale of secrecy. It worked so well for the last administration.
I'm losing my central vision and ability to read, so accessibility is a hot-button topic for me. Gmail is terrible, and that effects me - Google should do something about it. Recovery.gov is far easier to navigate with a screen reader. The first item on their web site is a graphic which does nothing for the blind, but the first link [recovery.gov] under it is to a text version. It's not perfect, but at least average. Anyway, almost no sites pay attention to accessibility guidelines. It's up to programmers behind programs like JAWs to make them accessible anyway, and frankly, they do a pretty good job.
Recovery.org is a huge success. Even for the blind.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:5, Insightful)
> "It's the right thing to do."
If that is the best argument ya got it won't work in the real world. But there is a better one. A site designed to be accessable tends to be a good website, period.
Some of the reason is that accesssable sites must avoid the temptation to take the easy fix of throwing anything complicated into a flash applet or other inaccessable crap. But an equally important part is the opposite argument of one I make in another post about .aspx being the seal of crap. It isn't because the Microsoft stuff can't be made to work with enough effort, it is that only clueless people tend to pick it in the first place and clueless people will do other clueless things. Conversely, people cluefull enough to build a properly accessable site will also tend to make a generally well designed site. And host it on a better and less costly platform like a LAMP server.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:1, Insightful)
I tend to agree. While there should be -some- accessibility standards (as in, being able to get everything in basic HTML, open standards, etc) but to be perfectly honest, some handicapped people just aren't cut out for some jobs or some tasks and may require assistance.
Too bad some ignorant fuckhole marked you troll for being right on spot. Fuck I hate slashdot. You clearly say some jobs. Does racecar driver not qualify as a job? How well suited is a blind person for this task? What about music critic as a deaf person? Oh and let't not forget basketball playing people without arms, there are a lot of those. The guy isn't saying anything degrading about handicapped people, he's merely stating the fucking truth. And if anybody wants to shield themselves from it then fine, but marking truth as troll means obligatory AC post with a nice cup of: fuck you. Now mod me down before somebody reads this piece of truth, god forbid.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:2, Insightful)
God forbid that one of this days you have an accident and loose any of your senses, especially your sight. Only then you may appreciate why there's all this talk of putting beepers on pedestrian crossings, making websites accessible to screen readers, and hell, even putting car-tones on electric cars.
It's one thing to try to help the handicapped in society. It's another to define something as worthless just because it hasn't yet been adapted to some handicapped audiences. You see one is being just, and one is being a fucking dick. I'll leave it to you to solve the puzzle.
Re:Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
What's impressive to me is that we were even aware of the multi-million design bill.
Airing out your dirty garbage does stink up the place for awhile, but in the end it keeps things fresh.
Re:Wrong line of work! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How very ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:4, Insightful)
So don't take any government money.
This is about a government web site specifically aimed at being accessible. So, no, the comments aren't going too far.
P.S.: It's not just a government web site, it's one that some people got paid a rather large amount to create, and expect to be paid another rather large lot to keep working.
My feeling is that the web site should be marked not satisfactory, and all payment withheld until they do it right.
Re:Okay (Score:4, Insightful)
However, this is something that should be brought up. It's great that Obama wants to modernize government IT use and communications, but this is different for the government than it is for the private sector. A company can decide they don't really need to go that extra mile to make their site perfect in terms of accessibility, they can be just barely on this side of the law and be fine. However, for the government, the site should be damn near perfect. It's the right of every citizen to be able to communicate effectively with their government. They serve all of us, so there isn't a "good enough" when it comes to access. Companies can choose customers, governments can't.
Re:Question on Accessibility (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
I don't know, but I am assuming they are avoiding 2 thru 55 HZ ,,, as to how it applies, I imagine it has to do with the frame rate of flash.
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you are understand that web accessibility is really not hard?
Incorrect. The web is an information medium. As far as the computer goes, the display and keyboard are really kind of arbitrary, the compelling action takes place between those two!
So, do you think it is a good practice for the Federal government to build (or pay for) things that create obstacles to citizens with disabilities? Or for the Feds to build/pay for applications that provide an obstacle to their current (and future) employees with disabilities?
Some random observations:
Re:Isn't this goingg a bit far? (Score:1, Insightful)
While it is true that some people (disabled or otherwise) aren't cut out for certain jobs, in the context of this conversation (being able to find out what your government is trying to tell you in an increasingly digital world), it is a troll.
GP is basically saying that blind people just aren't cut out to find out what their government is saying, which is bullshit.