Disabled user guidelines

Hi just wondered when people review sites do many take into account thing like the UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines) or disabled person issues or more a content for the masses sort of thing..? would it put people of with things like larger text etc something that was maybe more disabled users friendly...? Whats dmoz guidelines for disabled user friendly sites does it have one

No we don't - we aren't the internet police. We just look at a website's content and we don't deny a listing if it isn't compliant with accessibility standards.

However, some websites are actively user hostile even to the fully able reviewer. If a site can't be explored in non-geological time or the content is so well hidden behind cool mystery meat navigation systems that we can't find it, it might well be left for another reviewer or be declined. There are plenty of sites out there where form has defeated function .

jimnoble said:

No we don't - we aren't the internet police. We just look at a website's content and we don't deny a listing if it isn't compliant with accessibility standards.

However, some websites are actively user hostile even to the fully able reviewer. If a site can't be explored in non-geological time or the content is so well hidden behind cool mystery meat navigation systems that we can't find it, it might well be left for another reviewer or be declined. There are plenty of sites out there where form has defeated function .

Click to expand...

Whilst I understand you are not the internet police you are so to speak the police of what goes on the directory and as so if you to have a policy or alike on disabled person friendly sites do you not think web designer's may make the effort to do so as many want to list in it ? after all they seem to try and follow the guidlines that dmoz have to get listed

While you wil probably find broad philosophical agreement, you probably won't find a lot of willingness to implement anything.

We are, after all, a bunch of well-intnetioned hobbyists who are building a directory. We often find that other well meaning people (and a few grouches) attempt to thrust a mantle of leadership upon us, standing that as the largest human edited directory on the web we have a responsbility to....(name your issue).

We really don't. We are a directory. We care about unique content. Many would argue that with our base of volunteer editors we are poorly equipped to keep up with the growth of the web. We disagree but can see where they are coming from.

Adding things to our plate that do not directly help us build the directory are counterproductive -- no matter how much goodness they embrace -- are not likely to happen.

While we might choose to make a moral stand and exclude any sites which don't meet WACG 1.0 (or any other accessibility standard / guidelines), doing so would severely disadvantage the majority of our users, who then wouldn't be able to find links to the sites they were looking for. Even if we just chose to mark WCAG-compliant sites in some way, there would still be the problems of the time it would take to evaluate sites, how much of a site would we check, how often would we need to recheck the sites, and how many editors would actually be qualified to make the evaluations in the first place...