For more than a decade, the rules and regulations relating to the accessibility of web content in many countries have generally considered non-W3C technologies like JavaScript, PDF or Flash to be inaccessible. The number of people using the web today however, is far greater than back at the start of the millennium and they are using it for many more different reasons.

Has the accessibility of the web improved in the years since the release of WCAG 1.0 in 1999? Anecdotally this seems to be the case and when you look at specific sites it is often easy to see improvement. But overall, I don’t know if the content of the web is anymore accessible. I regularly come across sites that fail basic accessibility guidelines.

I did a quick check of the seven most visited sites in Australia and the US and it appears none comply fully with the minimum requirements of WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 and nearly all contain non-W3C content without adequate accessible alternatives. Also let us not forget, the first major legal action relating to website inaccessibility concerned the site of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, and yet, according to a recent report by Joe Clark, ten years on the website for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics is also inaccessible.

There is a tendency to consider website accessibility primarily from the perspective of people with impaired vision. In particular, accessibility is often equated with how well a site and the information it contains can be accessed by someone who relies on a screen reader to use the web. Only about one third of people who report a disability however, indicate their disability is related to sight. So, are accessibility requirements that work well for screen readers users as effective at meeting the needs of people with other disabilities?

WCAG 2.0, which was released in December 2008, attempts to provide guidelines that are more appropriate for a rapidly changing web, where new technologies and techniques are being developed all the time. But, WCAG 2.0 does not specify the web content technologies that might be ‘considered accessibility supported’ nor which or how many assistive technologies should be able to access ‘accessibility supported’ web content. Could the lack of clear guidance in relation to these matters result in regulators playing it safe by deciding not to adopt a technologically neutral approach to accessibility? If so, I am fearful that this could ultimately undermine the universality of the web.

Over the years, I, and many others, have often used the risk of possible prosecution under disability discrimination laws as a convenient argument for improvements in website accessibility. But, has this big-stick legislative approach been successful? Most web developers and senior managers know the risk of prosecution is extremely low and many still do not seem to be particularly sensitive to the issue of accessibility.

Rather than complaining about the possible failings of past, I believe after a decade of accessibility rules it is time explore options for the future: We need to enhance the acceptance of accessibility guidelines; raise the overall awareness of the need for improved web content accessibility; address the cost of access to information for assistive technology users; and, improve the ability of people with disabilities to use assistive technologies and standard user agents like browsers.

In the real world, most people now accept that the needs of people with disabilities should be accommodated in public transport and building design. When it comes to the web however, I am concerned that many still view accessibility through the lens of charity and not rights. Too often the needs of people with disabilities who use the web are dismissed and web site accessibility is considered an add-on, something to be done only when time and money permit. Rules alone are not enough. Attitudes and behaviour both also need to change.

“Ten Years of Web Content Accessibility Rules: Time for a Rethink?” presentation is on Friday March 26 at 9.20.

“Government agencies will transition to WCAG 2.0 over a four year period, reaching level Single A within two years, and Double A within four years. A Transition Strategy will outline the process for implementation, and will address scope and inclusion issues. The Transition Strategy will be made available on the Web Publishing Guide in July 2010.”

Almost immediately half truths and wild rumors began to circulate around the web. I heard a report of one developer saying, WCAG 2.0 Double A compliance was almost impossible because it meant that you had to meet over 700 checkpoints. This is incorrect.

And so, following a little prompting by friends, I decided to write this very brief overview of WCAG 2.0.

But first, although the announcement relates to government websites, it is extremely likely that the WCAG 2.0 requirements will extend to all web pages developed by organizations in Australia or placed on a web server in Australia.

Differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

One major difference between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 is that while WCAG 1.0 was primarily concerned with HTML, the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and Success Criteria do not refer to HTML or any other web content technology.

Instead, WCAG 2.0 introduced the concept of “accessibility-support”. This means that for a web content technology (e.g. HTML, Flash, JavaScript etc) to qualify as accessible it must meet two basic requirements:

First, the way a particular web content technology is used must be supported by assistive technologies such as screen readers and switching devices.

Second, users must be able to obtain user agents (e.g. browsers and plugins) for the web content technology. These user agents have to have to be accessible and work with the assistive technologies, and the availability should not discriminate against people with disabilities.

WCAG 2.0 is not concerned with the technology used, but how you use it. However, this doesn’t mean you can use any technology you like. It is going to be up to authorities in Australia, probably AGIMO and the Australian Human Rights Commission, to decide which technologies they will consider accessibility-supported and under what circumstances. For example, will they decide to accept JavaScript, or PDF, or PDF forms as accessible formats? We may not get the answers to these questions until the Transition Strategy is released in July.

Structure of WCAG 2.0

The structure of WCAG 2.0 starts with four basic principles of web accessibility:

1. Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive with at least one of their senses.
2. Operable - Users must be able to operate the interface and it can’t require interactions that the user can not perform.
3. Understandable - Users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface.
4. Robust - Content must be robust enough so that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

Within these four Principles there are 12 Guidelines and each Guideline contains a number of Success Criteria. All together, there are 61 Success Criteria and each Criterion is given one of three levels of conformance, A, AA or AAA. It should be noted, the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are not the same as the Checkpoints in WCAG 1.0.

WCAG Documents

The core W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 is a “normative” document which contains the Principles, Guidelines and Success Criteria. These are basically the rules.

The Guidelines provide the requirements for making content more accessible to users with different disabilities, but in themselves are not really testable. Success Criteria, on the other hand, are designed to be testable, either by machines or humans, and are usually presented as testable statements. Success Criteria can be used for things like design specifications and for conformance testing to see if a site has satisfied contractual agreements.

The “normative” document containing Guidelines and Success Criteria is supported by “informative” documents, including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0. The How to Meet document contains a number of suggested techniques for complying with each Success Criterion, but developers do not need to comply with all the suggested techniques, just those that are required to satisfy the Success Criterion. For example, when it comes to identifying a form input, you might use the ‘label’ element with the ‘for’ attribute (Technique H44) or a ‘title’ attribute for the input element (Technique H65) depending on the circumstances, but it is not likely you will use both.

It will be important for developers to understand the relationship between Principles, Guidelines and Success Criteria. But the How to Meet document is where you will find practical advice and many very useful examples about how to make things accessible.

WCAG 2.0 Conformance Requirements

The W3C provides five Conformance Requirements that must be met in order for content to be classified as ‘conforming’ to WCAG 2.

1. All the information or content on a page must meet one of the Success Criteria levels. For example, is it Level A or Level AA? Or has an appropriate complying alternative been provided. NB: No conformance is possible if all the content does not fully satisfy Level A
2. The whole page has to comply. You can’t just exclude the parts of a page that might have content that doesn’t comply. However, you can use non-complying content so long as an alternative is provided and it doesn’t interfere with the page (see point 5).
3. Where a page is part of a process, e.g. purchasing a ticket, all pages or steps in the process must conform at the specified Success Criterion Level.
4. Only “accessibility supported ways of using technologies” can be relied on and where this is not possible an alternative that is accessibility supported should be provided.
5. Technologies that are not accessibility supported can be used, as long as all the information is also available using technologies that are supported AND the non-accessibility-supported material on the page does not interfere with the ability of users to use the rest of the page, for example it doesn’t trap the cursor, or users can control audio content.

WCAG 2.0 – No Need to Panic

Finally, although the WCAG 2.0 documents contain a lot of words, which some might find a little confusing, and there are a few new requirements, most experienced web developers won’t find moving from WCAG 1 to WCAG 2 difficult. Furthermore, WCAG 2 offers greater flexibility and some real benefits for designers and developers, for example a more practical approach to the use of colours and the mark-up of forms.

More information:

WCAG 2.0 Guidelines (W3C)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

Understanding Accessibility Support (WAI)
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head

WCAG 2.0 and Accessibility Supported (Roger Hudson) http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/wcag-20-and-accessibility-supported/

Comparison of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 (WAI)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/from10/comparison/

Migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 (WIPA/Roger Hudson)
http://wipa.org.au/papers/wcag-migration.htm

NOTE: I will be looking at how to comply with the key Single A and Double A Success Criteria during the WCAG 2.0 in Depth workshops in April and May.

When Ralph Fly was introduced at the start of the final session, Sky Crystal was surprised to find it was the same young man who had bought a pyramid helmet in her shop several months earlier. He wasn’t dressed in a suit this time, but his casual clothes were tailored and expensive.

Ralph stood in front of a large screen with ever changing, ever more spectacular, images of whales, as he delivered an authoritative, well-researched paper on how these monsters of the deep communicate. While Ralph didn’t look like a tree-hugger or talk in the language of a hard-core environmental activist, it was clear to all that listened he knew his whales and was committed to the preservation of the ocean ecology. Sky was impressed.

While the sound of a recent recording of whale songs echoed around the room, Ralph surveyed the audience and spotted Sky listening with her eyes closed.

“As people concerned with the welfare of whales, we need to be aware that in our eagerness to learn more about our friends we can sometimes cause them problems,” Ralph said, flicking to the last series of slides in his presentation.

“Last year, I was in the spotter plan during a combined survey and saw a female humpback showing all the signs of giving birth. Her behaviour began to change as our two research boats approached, even though they were 4 or 5 miles away. As the boats got closer, the whale became increasingly distressed so we radioed the boats and asked them to stop. Within 30 seconds of doing so, the whale calmed down. And, an hour later, she gave birth to this beautiful calf,” Ralph concluded as he changed the image on the screen.

The audience applauded vigorously as Ralph assembled his papers.

After questions, Ralph was thanked and the session declared closed. Politely fending off people wanting more information, Ralph made his way across the room to where Sky was sitting. “I’ve got to speak to you, it’s very important.”

“Not a customer complaint, I hope,” Sky said with a gentle laughing smile.

“Eh?” Ralph said, oblivious to the attempted joke.

“The helmet,” Sky prompted.

“No nothing like that,” Ralph replied. Let’s go outside to talk, it’s quieter.”

It was the end of the day, and Thomas Delicatessen and Fine Foods was closed. Inside, Dean Thomas was cleaning the slicer as Madge took the meats and cheeses out the display fridge and put them on large steel trays for storing in the coolroom over night. As usual they worked in silence, listening to PM, the evening current affairs program on the radio.

The PM presenter segued from a story of one corporate financial disaster to another as Jane Thomas, returning late from school, entered the shop.

“Sensational allegations were made in parliament today about the collapse of Regal Mortgage,” the radio proclaimed, causing Jane her parents to stop and listen. “The Member for Twin Rivers, Tom Quirky, outlined how a secret ten million dollar commission had been paid to Elliott Price for organising the rescue bid for the failed financial company. Neither Elliot Price, nor Regal Mortgage’s managing director, Sir Murray St Clair, was available for comment.”

“I bet they weren’t,” Dean snorted.

Madge turned off the radio and passed the loaded tray of cheese and meat to her daughter. “Here, put that in the coolroom for me dear.”

“Tell you what love,” Dean said to his wife as Jane carried the tray through the door at the back of the shop. “In the new shop we’ll have fridges you can leave stuff in overnight. No more of this packing up every evening.”

But before Madge could reply, Sky Crystal burst into the shop, out of breath and agitated. “You’ll never guess what that snake Purvis is trying to do,” Sky shouted. “He’s selling out to the Japanese!”

Rather than the shock and horror she was expecting, Sky found her news greeted with carefree good spirit.

“Sorry Sky,” Madge said stifling a laugh. “You look like you’ve just escaped from the devil.”

“We already know,” Dean offered. “But what’s it matter who owns the shopping centre.

Jane Thomas walked back into the shop as Sky’s next piece of news turned her parents’ levity to instant solemnity.

In the next episode, “Time for Merlin”, the Thomas family hear the bad news and look to an old friend for retribution.

The press release by Minister Tanner contained few details, but said all government websites would need to comply with WCAG 2.0 by 2015.

“These new standards will improve the ability of people with a broad range of disabilities to take up those opportunities and engage with the Government via the Internet.”

Mr Bill Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary of Disabilities, reminded us that people with disabilities still face barriers that stop them from participating in many areas including work and education. He also said unequal access to information would reinforce the 2nd class status of people with disability within Australia. Mr Shorten supported the move from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0.

“This initiative will help ensure that people with disability are not left behind by the rapid growth of the Internet.”

On Wednesday 24, The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) provided the following additional information:

“Government agencies will transition to WCAG 2.0 over a four year period, reaching level Single A within two years, and Double A within four years. A Transition Strategy will outline the process for implementation, and will address scope and inclusion issues. The Transition Strategy will be made available on the Web Publishing Guide in July 2010.

Agencies are reminded that it is still a requirement to publish an alternative to all PDF documents (preference for HTML or RTF). Advice on the accessibility support of PDF documents will be made available at the conclusion of the PDF Accessibility Review Project, due early 2010.”

The Transition Strategy, which is to be released in July, will be critical for at this stage we don’t know which technologies will be considered “accessibility supported” within the meaning of WCAG 2.0. In other words, when moving to WCAG 2.0, will it be acceptable to use accessible JavaScript or PDF, for example, without the need to provide an equivalent HTML (or RTF) alternative?

It should be noted, that although the press release refers directly to government websites, the Australian Disability Discrimination Commissioner has strongly supported the move so it seems very likely that the Human Rights Commission will extend the requirement to all websites.

I think the move to adopting WCAG 2.0 is great and overdue. It has the potential bring significant benefits to web developers and their clients as well as web users with disabilities, including those who rely on assistive technologies.

For more information:
WCAG 2.0 Guidelines (W3C)

WCAG 2.0 and Accessibility Supported (Roger Hudson)

Understanding Accessibility Support (WAI)

NOTE: I will be looking at how to comply with the key Single A and Double A Success Criteria during the WCAG 2.0 in Depth workshops in April and May.

How governments around the world balance the potential of web 2.0 with the reality of making sure these new ways of engaging with the community are available to all, will be interesting. After several months work and several million dollars, the Draft Report of the Taskforce unfortunately does not offer us any new insights into this question, and if anything steps back from the notion that universal access to web content should be a right, and not a privilege. Perhaps this is not surprising since it seems that no one with specialist knowledge in the area of accessibility was on the Taskforce.

The Draft Report contains many nice words about the importance of open government and how we need to do more to ensure that agencies share information. It also talks about the need to simplify copyright and the use of Creative Commons to allow others to remix and reuse government information in different ways. I find little to argue with in these overall aims.

The Draft Report also promotes the use of ‘Web 2.0′ social networking tools by the Public Service as a way of enhancing greater engagement with the community, quote:

“‘Government 2.0’ may be understood as the application of tools and approaches associated with collaborative web or ‘Web 2.0’ as it has been dubbed. These tools are potentially transformative of the way governments operate.”

I have no argument with the notion that the use of social networking tools can bring benefits in terms of greater engagement and collaboration by the people who use these tools. In fact, I believe some of the tools mentioned in the Draft Report can bring real accessibility gains to people who may otherwise be socially isolated as the result of specific physical, cognitive or behavioural disorders.

I am concerned however, that the Taskforce does not appear to have identified how many people in Australia actually use these web 2.0 tools. I would have thought that this would be essential if you are going to advocate tools and approaches that have the potential to transform the way governments operate.

During September 2008, I did a quick survey of 90 people to gain some insights into the Use of Web 2.0 Tools. I found significant differences in both how much the tools were used and how they were used by different sectors of the community. For example, the web 2.0 tools considered were used on average by 84% of web evangelist (surveyed at a Web Standards Group meeting), whereas 43% of media workers and only 25% of teachers surveyed used the tools. Now, I don’t pretend for a moment that the results of this survey give us anymore than a glimpse at the use of some social networking tools by 90 people in late 2008.

However, given that the Taskforce mandate was to advise and assist the Government to make government material more accessible and usable by the general community, I was expecting to see in the report some indication of the overall use of the suggested web 2.0 tools by different sections of the Australian community. In particular, when it comes to the issue of social inclusion, I would like to know if the Taskforce considered the following questions:

• How many people who come from non-English speaking backgrounds, or who are unable to read English, use the web and web 2.0 tools?
• What percentage of the people who live in regional Australia use web 2.0 tools?
• What percentage of the older section of the community use web 2.0 tools?
• Do web 2.0 tools pose any accessibility problems for people with disabilities who rely on assistive technologies? The 2009 WebAim “Screen Reader User Survey” offers some useful insights into this question. Of the people who responded to the WebAim survey, 25% found social media websites generally inaccessible.

Accessibility concerns

I will now turn to the specific issue of accessibility, as defined by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative:

“Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can contribute to the Web”

The Australian Government 2.0 Draft Report is large, 159 pages, and in those pages there are numerous references to many Acts of Commonwealth and State parliaments concerning a wide range of issues including; privacy; FOI; use of data; financial management; defence and security. One Act that doesn’t get a mention is the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), probably the most important act in Australia when it comes to protecting the rights of the disabled.

Of the 159 pages in the report, only a few are concerned with the accessibility of web 2.0 tools and the overall attitude is probably best summed up by this quote from the report:

“In many instances the application of full accessibility compliance can result in major delays, abandoning of initiatives or a severe weakening in functionality. In the public sector compliance is mandated, if compliance cannot be met then the project cannot proceed. The result is that access is denied for everyone.”

What are the ‘many instances’ where full compliance can result in major delays? No examples are provided in the report. However, one of the Government 2.0 Taskforce blogs, “Accessibility for all or none?” is illuminating in this regard. The blog describes how one government department did not publish 300 submissions they had received because they did not have the resources to convert them into HTML. The post goes onto say:

“The result of meeting the mandate was that access to substantial, valuable content was eliminated. I think the intent of the rules is to provide access for everyone.

Is this acceptable? If accessibility requirements cannot be met, does that mean that content or systems cannot go on-line?”

To me the rhetorical questions at the end of the above quote come perilously close to “dog whistling” that will give succour to those who labour under the misconception that accessibility is all too difficult and/or too expensive.

Of course making accessible alternatives for 300 submissions is going to cost money. But, surely when a government department requests submissions, the pertinent question to ask is, why didn’t the department factor into the overall process and budget for the project how they were going to make the submission accessible? I have no doubt this same unnamed department would save money when designing a new office building if, for example, they tell the architects and builders not to worry about things like toilets for the disabled or wheelchair access. It really comes down to the simple question of whether or not we believe access to web content by people with disabilities should be a right, or some form of charity to be dispensed only when time and money permits (see Social Inclusion for the Web).

The Government 2.0 Draft Report contains many examples of how web 2.0 can enable connections and collaborations of all kinds. For example:

“Thus, the social networking website Facebook has facilitated and enriched communication between people within social networks. Meetup.com, where people propose meetings, anywhere and for anything, has facilitated all sorts of get togethers of people with common interests and passions. And the internet ‘ideas market’ Innocentive has brought together those with technical problems to solve and those who can solve them.”

Many of the examples provided in the report, including all three in the previous quote, fail to fully comply with either version 1 or version 2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. In some cases they are likely to be inaccessible to many assistive technology users, not because it would have been difficult to make them accessible, but because nobody bothered to do it. For example, the “Innocentive” site uses a CAPTCHA image for registration without providing an alternative in another modality. (In the previously mentioned “Screen Reader User Survey” CAPTCHA was the item that most participants found problematic, and yet many web 2.0 tools use CAPTCHA.)

Sure coming to grips with the accessibility demands of some new technologies will be difficult, however the work of the Taskforce and the Draft Report do not appear to offer any suggestions or advice in this regard. I would have thought that with a budget, which I think was $2.4 million, spending a small a proportion on researching CAPTCHA and possible alternatives would have been a good investment with long term benefits for all government agencies and the web community as a whole.

The accessibility section of the Draft Report does contain some generalised statements about the need for cultural change and compliance with WCAG. However, these are somewhat undermined by the Taskforce’s failure to unequivocally advise government agencies to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and the requirements of AGIMO when it comes to web content. Rather the report suggests:

“Freedom for agencies to choose non-accessible tools after careful consideration and always with the aim of maximum accessibility compliance. This enables agencies to deliver innovative engagement projects while maximising accessibility in the circumstances and providing alternative options for accessibility. For example, an agency may wish to use Facebook as tool as part of a consultation process, which would in many cases make good sense. However, the agency would need to ensure that it was not limiting the potential for citizens to participate in the consultation because of accessibility issues associated with the tool;”

Well at first glance that seems fine, but:

• What constitutes “careful consideration” - a quick chat with colleagues by the water cooler or commissioning someone with specialist knowledge to thoroughly research the issue?
• How can you choose a non-accessible tool “always with the aim of maximum accessibility compliance”?
• What “circumstances” and what “options for alternatives” should be considered when “maximising accessibility”?
• And, if you don’t make material accessible are you not limiting the potential for some citizens to participate?

In my opinion, all these issues could be adequately addressed by the Taskforce recommending agencies comply with the requirements of WCAG 2.0 with appropriate technologies declared “accessibility supported.”

In Recommendation 13 – Accessibility, the Taskforce recommends:

“Agency compliance with the Worldwide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the minimum accessibility level for all online community engagement and online PSI [Public Sector Information] provision is required.”

Once again this all seems fine, but in the next point the Taskforce steps back from fully supporting the need for accessible web content. Quote:

“Where an agency is considering a project where strict compliance with WCAG accessibility guidelines would unacceptably delay or prevent a project from proceeding, AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities;

In this case projects should only proceed with an online statement explaining site accessibility, together with an outline of where and why it does not meet a specific WCAG guideline, and what alternative options for accessible access were considered or are provided and plans for future compliance.”

More weasel words: What is “unacceptable delay”? When push comes to shove, under this recommendation, would an agency have to do anything more than “consider” an alternative option and indicate that they plan to comply at some undetermined time in the future?

A quick aside on the question of what is acceptable in terms of time: I couldn’t help noticing that the audio from the Government 2.0 Roadshows of last August still don’t appear to have transcripts, even though they were promised at the time. The “Vox Pop 2.0 Learning Journey” blog makes for interesting reading in this regard.

Now, as many will know, the failure to supply a text alternative is in breach of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 as well as AGIMO guidelines, but I am not sure if 6 months would be considered an acceptable or unacceptable amount of time to comply with these requirements. I also notice that the Vox Pop 2.0 blog asked for people to help generate the transcripts, in part as an example of “crowdsourcing and collaboration”. Wishful thinking or deliberate obfuscation, I leave it up to you to decide. Whatever you decide, I am not sure it is appropriate for a government taskforce to leave meeting its obligations in the area of web content accessibility up to the charity of others.

In conclusion, I feel the Draft Report presents a very narrow, technology-centric view of what is required. The report seems to assume all citizens who may wish to engage with the government are able-bodied, web-savvy, can read English and are both willing and able to use social networking tools.

Rather than arguing the case for social inclusion; the report is more concerned with canvassing the various excuses and discounts for not addressing the issue of making sure all people, including those with disabilities, will be able to engage in the proposed Government 2.0 world.

NOTE: I will be examining issues involved in balancing the use of new technologies with accessibility requirements during the WCAG 2.0 in Depth workshops in April and May.

Ray Purvis, who had come third in his yacht class the year before and had high hopes of doing better this weekend. His boat, a Farr 40 called Hotshot, was prepared and Ray was dressed for the part; blue shorts and a custom made Atmosphere Shirt from Henri-Lloyd and Sperry deck shoes. After a quick bit of business, Ray would be down at the yacht club supervising the loading of provisions.

It was several weeks since Purvis had confidently told Sir Murray St Clair and Elliott Price that Sky Crystal had agreed to sell her shop, but he still didn’t have a signed contract. Dean Thomas was already committed and Ray knew that if he didn’t get Sky’s signature by the following Wednesday the deal with the Kaytee Corporation would be off and Purvis Holdings would collapse.

On the way to the office, Purvis stopped once more in the backstreets of Newbury and walked up to the front door of the Crystal Shop. The door was locked and taped to the glass was the note telling customers the shop was closed and would open again on Monday. Ray hammered on the door, but there was no answer.

Ray hastily wrote a note. He got down on his knees, and just as he was trying to slide the note and the sale contract under the door, it swung open.

Sky Crystal looked down at Purvis and pushed her bicycle out onto the pavement. “What do you want?” Sky demanded as she closed and locked the door.

“Hope I didn’t frighten you Miss Crystal,” Ray Purvis said as he straightened up, contract in hand. “I need to finalise the sale of the shop.”

“Impossible!”

“I just need your signature on the contract,” Ray said.

“I’m not making any business decisions today,” Sky replied dismissively. “Mars and Saturn are both rising.”

“There’s no decision to make. We’ve talked about it and you agreed. All you have to do is sign here.” Purvis pleaded, indicating with his pen.

“Never sign anything without reading it, that’s what uncle Elliott has always told me,” Sky said as she put on her bike helmet. “Now if you don’t mind, I am running late for my workshop.”

“Sure,” Purvis said realising he no hope of getting the contract signed then. “I’ll leave it with you and collect it on Monday.”

Sky took the contract and put it in her shoulder bag and rode off down the street.

An hour later, Ray Purvis was in his office at Purvis Holdings preparing to leave for the yacht club. On the desk in front of him was a pile of documents ready for delivery to Mr Oshi from the Kaytee Corporation. Ray picked up the top document, the contract for the sale of the deli and flicked through to the page signed by Dean Thomas. He smiled at the wiggly signature and the memory of Dean’s insistence on using an old fountain pen.

There was a gentle knock on the door and the receptionist entered. “Is Ralph here?” Purvis asked as Narelle walked across to the desk. “I’ve tried his office, and I can’t get him on the mobile either.”

“He had the day off, Mr Purvis,” Narelle replied.

“That’s right. Some bloody family commitment. Bugger it!” Purvis said in exasperation.

“Anything I can do?” Narelle asked.

“Yeah. I’m going sailing,” Purvis said with a chuckle. “And I might be in late on Monday if the weather blows up.”

“Good luck in the race Mr Purvis,” the receptionist said interrupting her boss.

“Thanks Narelle. Anyway, tell Ralph he’s got to pick up a contract from Sky Crystal first thing Monday morning and to make sure it is signed.”

“Yes Mr Purvis.”

“I don’t care if he has to realign the planets, I just want it signed. And, if I am not back before lunch on Monday, he’s to put the Crystal shop contract with these and deliver the lot to Mr Oshi at his hotel.”

“I understand Mr Purvis. Ralph is to take all those papers about the shopping centre to Mr Oshi Monday morning.”

“Good girl. And, don’t let him stuff it up Narelle, its very important.”

“Very good, Mr Purvis. And I hope you win the Classic this time,” the receptionist said before she left the office.

“So do I Narelle, so do I,” Purvis said to himself as he took one more look at the page signed by Dean Thomas before returning the deli contract to the top of the pile with Dean’s wiggly signature facing up.

In the next episode, “Whale Workshop”, Sky learns something very interesting.

We like to rejoice in the notion that all ‘men are created equal with inalienable rights’, or ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’, to take a more Marxist approach, however this hasn’t always been the case.

Let us not forget, Australian women only won the right to vote at the beginning of the twentieth century. And for the next 65 years, when it came to employment, there was no such thing as equal pay for equal work for women and those who worked for the Public Service had to resign when they got married. Before the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal men and women had almost no rights, they weren’t included in the census and didn’t have the freedom to move around the country or live where they wished.

In these examples, sections of the Australian community were either excluded from full participation in society or their participation depended on the beneficence of those in power, who for most part were white men of property.

Of course, the situation in Australia is a lot better today. We no longer have a “white Australia” policy and there are various anti-discrimination laws. This is not to suggest that there is no racism in Australia or women have full equality in employment, for the introduction of laws alone is not enough; community attitudes also have to change.

During the last decade or so, social policies relating to people with disabilities in many countries have changed significantly. There has been a shift from what could be basically described as a charity model, where government and non-government organisations ‘helped’ those identified as in need, towards the notion of social inclusion.

What do I mean by social inclusion?

In short, it is about having a society where all people feel valued. Their differences are respected, and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity.

It’s the opposite of exclusion, where people are excluded from participating fully in the social, economic and cultural life of a community as a result of their difference, be it in their income, race, gender or abilities.

As we know, in the past, society didn’t fully embrace the idea that people of a different gender or colour should have equal rights, and this same attitude of exclusion also bore down on those in the community who looked or behaved differently. For a child with cerebral palsy or an adult who was blind, access to education, information, transport – the everyday things of life – was not an inalienable right, but depended to a large extent on the charity of others. This colonialist model saw us; the able bodied with enlightenment and of course self-declared physical and mental abilities, bestowing gifts and privileges on them; the disabled.

When it comes to disabilities, progress towards more socially inclusive societies around the world has, in my opinion, been slow. One small example, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, but the UN Convention on The Rights of Persons with Disabilities didn’t appear until 2006. Australia ratified the Convention in 2008 and while the US signed the convention last year it is still to be ratified by Congress.

In the real world, it is no longer the norm in many countries to segregate school children solely on the basis of a disability; rather everything is done to try to accommodate those with different needs within the general school environment. In Australia at least, schools for children who are deaf or blind are by and large a thing of the past. A few specialist schools do remain, and most of them primarily cater for children with multiple and sometimes profound disabilities.

Also, there is increasing awareness of the abilities of those who were often stigmatised as disabled in the past. There is a growing recognition of the distinct cultural and linguistic identity of the Deaf community, and a far greater appreciation of the special talents of many people with cognitive disabilities.

Changing attitudes can be a slow process, and the introduction of new technologies can sometimes become barriers or excuses that have to be overcome. If I might return to the classroom for a moment to help illustrate this point: When sighted impaired children were first integrated into the standard classroom environment it required a change in attitude on behalf of teachers as well as other children in the class. Some teachers found this particularly challenging, and if there was too much chalk and not enough talk the child who was unable to see the board was often left behind.

Today, we have many more visual teaching aids, such as PowerPoint, video, electronic whiteboards and of course the web. For some teachers these have become another excuse, or way of discounting, the importance of ensuring that those who are unable to see have equal access to education. Rather than changing teaching practices or providing accessible supplementary materials, it is easier for these teachers to fall back on the simplistic, utilitarian excuse of satisfying the needs of the greatest number of people. Thankfully, excuses like this should not, and are not, considered legally acceptable.

In the real world, one of the hallmarks of a civilised and inclusive society is a willingness to accept the differences in people and not discriminate against those with disabilities. When it comes to the web however, I am concerned that many still view accessibility through the lens of charity and not rights. Too often the needs of people with disabilities who use the web are dismissed and web site accessibility is considered an add-on, something to be done only when time and money permit.

For the last 10 years we have had rules and guidelines promoting web content accessibility and contrary to what some people say, it is not difficult to make an attractive, modern site that complies with these guidelines. However as we all know, there are many inaccessible websites out there. What I believe we fundamentally need are changes in attitude, particularly on the part of site developers and their clients, as well as those in governments and industry with responsibility for regulating web content accessibility.

In a future post, I will be looking at the accessibility implications of the Australian Gov 2.0 draft report. From my reading, it seems to me that the authors of the report also ‘don’t get it’ when it comes to social inclusion. The report is available at http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/

Note: Social Inclusion and the role guidelines and rules play in promoting website accessibility are among the issues I will be discussing in my CSUN presentation.

Ruth was the State Junior Women’s Single Sculls champion when she first met Jane at the beginning of the year. Jane on the hand had not been interested in any sporting activity, but this changed when Ruth coaxed her into a rowing shell one morning. Here was a sport Jane felt she might be able to enjoy and, who knows, may even become quite good at.

As rowers and friends Jane and Ruth clicked. They decided to go for the double-sculls in this year’s State Rowing Titles, and were given permission to use the school rowing facilities for training every morning and afternoon. A few weeks into training, the school Principal was altered to an unsupervised training session and the permission was withdrawn.

When Peter and Marty, two rowers from another club, heard that Jane and Ruth had been banned from rowing at school, they talked their coach into allowing the girls to use one of the sculling pairs at their club. Jane and Ruth trained hard at the club with help from the two boys and Steve, the coach. Jane’s technical skills had improved greatly, but she had never been in a rowing race and no one knew how she would stand up to the pressure. For the last two weeks of training, Steve had arranged for the girls to be joined in their early morning sessions by two other double-sculls; Peter and Marty were in one and a couple of their mates in the other.

It was now Friday and the State Rowing Championships were just two days away. It was the last day or training, and as Ruth and Jane practiced their starts in the middle of the river, their fathers were deep in conversation on the bank. The previous week, Dean had told Abraham about the Regal Mortgage depositors meeting and the proposed rescue bid for the company. Abraham had been sceptical, doubting whether the government would have anything to do with the failed company, but promised to see what he could find out.

Out on the water the practice race starts weren’t going well. The girls were slow getting away and when Ruth tried to increase the rating, Jane was not able to keep up with her. After another slow start, which saw Ruth and Jane loose nearly a boat length in the first 50 metres, coach Steve stopped the tinny beside the girl’s shell.

“You’ve got to lift the rating sooner,” Steve told the girls.

Ruth knew this was the case, but said nothing as she busied herself adjusting a foot strap.

“I know,” Jane replied apologetically. “But I need more time, just a few strokes.”

“You don’t have more time!” Steve snapped. He turned to address Ruth directly. “You know what’s needed. Give me five three-quarter draws and then a high ten.”

Ruth agreed and the crews manoeuvred the three racing shells into a straight line. Steve raised the starters flag, checked to see if everyone was ready and then dropped the flag as he shouted go!

The three shells pulled away smoothly, but as Ruth moved into the 10 high rating strokes, Jane lost it and slapped the water with an oar as she screamed, “Shit, shit, shit!”

Jane’s shout caught the attention of both fathers and they turned to look at the girls. “Looks like they are still having trouble,” Dean said, a worried expression on his face.

“They’ll work it out,” Abraham replied confidently and both men continued walking down the path. Abraham outlined what he had discovered about the rescue bid for Regal Mortgage and the news wasn’t good.

“So you don’t think the rescue’s going to come off?” Dean asked.

“Can’t see it,” was Abraham’s blunt reply. “Most of the major financial institutions have rejected the idea. And if they’re not in it, I can’t see the Government getting involved.”

“I’ve probably done my dough then,” Dean said despondently.

Abraham put a hand on his friend’s shoulder. “Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, Dean.”

“Oh we’ll be right,” Dean replied. “We’re still in business and the shopping centre’s going ahead. Regal’s dropped out, but Purvis has got a Japanese backer.”

“That is good to hear,” Abraham said with more hope than confidence that everything would work out well for Dean Thomas and his family.

In the next episode, “Going Sailing”, Purvis is unable to get a signed contract from Sky Crystal before he has to leave for the Ocean Classic and Ralph has the day off. The contract will have to wait until Monday morning.

“I hope so,” Mr Oshi from Kaytee had insisted at the end of their meeting, “I leave for Tokyo next Wednesday and our deal must be completed by then.”

Early the next morning, the Purvis yellow Rolls Royce was parked once again in the back streets of Newbury opposite the two properties Ray Purvis desperately needed. The semi-detached retail building from the 1920’s with its traditional delicatessen and a new-age crystal shop was an incongruous clash of the old and the new in colour and style.

Ray knocked on the crystal shop door. There was no answer. His annoyance turned to anger as he read the small hand written note taped to the inside of the glass. “Closed for meditation and whale watching, that’d be right!” Ray said to himself as he kicked the door in frustration.

The delicatessen next door was open. Inside, Madge Thomas was stacking some selves when Ray Purvis, unsure of the reception he would receive, stepped tentatively into the shop. Madge turned to greet who she thought would be the first customer of the day. The smile on her face quickly faded.

“You’ve got a nerve!” Madge declared as she advanced on the unexpected and unwanted visitor.

“Please, Mrs Thomas,” Purvis said in a silky voice. “I knew nothing about the trouble at Regal Mortgage.”

“So you say,” Madge Thomas snapped back. “Just stay away from us.”

On hearing his wife’s raised voice, Dean rushed into the shop from the backroom. “What do you want?” Dean demanded of Ray without wishing for an answer, as he walked over and stood next to Madge, hands on hips.

“Dean, Madge, please. I can understand why you might be angry with me, but honest, I was in the dark as much as you.”

“You have done enough damage Mr Purvis, so I think it would be wise if you left right now,” Dean said coldly.

Purvis was unswayed and did not move. “It’s true!” Purvis pleaded. “I’ve got money with Regal Mortgage myself.”

With the skill of a consummate salesman, Purvis’s soothing empathetic words transformed Dean’s anger into concern. Purvis told of his regret for suggesting family and friends invest with Regal Mortgage and how he would also personally suffer should the company fail. And then there was the impact such a failure might have on his business. “You know Regal were the major backers of the shopping centre,” Purvis told the Thomases.

Madge’s scepticism when it came to Ray Purvis was not assuaged by what she heard, but her husband was now more worried. Dean, who had been preoccupied with the possible loss of their savings, had not considered what effect the collapse of Regal Mortgage might have on his plans to establish a new international deli.

“I suppose this means the shopping centre’s not happening,” Dean asked despondently.

“I’m a man of honour, Dean, I think you know that,” Purvis said with smooth sincerity. “A lot of people are depending on that project. Good people like you and Madge who’ve agreed to sell their properties…”

“Now wait a minute Ray,” Dean jumped in.

“Don’t worry, Dean,” Purvis said reassuringly. “I have come here to tell you the good news personally. A Japanese firm is interested in providing the finance.”

“So the deal’s still on?” Dean asked.

“Sure is,” Purvis replied. “I’ve got a contract for you right here.”

Although Madge Thomas didn’t like Ray Purvis, his offer to buy the family deli had seemed fair and she and her husband had already agreed to the sale. The desire to get away from Purvis overwhelmed Madge. “I have work to do out the back, so I’ll leave you men to it,” she explained.

As Madge left the room, Ray Purvis opened his brief case, took out the contract and put it on the top of the Merlin freezer cabinet. The freezer motor switched on, and as Purvis flicked through the contract pages looking for the one to be signed, the rattle of the motor increased.

Purvis folded back the pages of the contract and took a gold ballpoint pen from his inside jacket pocket. He clicked the pen with a flourish and offered it to Dean. “All you have to do is sign here,” Purvis said, indicating the section on the page.

Dean looked at the pen with suspicion. “Oh no, I don’t think so.”

A look of anxiety spread across Purvis’s face. The Merlin motor roared, clunked and stopped. “You’re not have second thoughts now, are you mate?” Purvis asked.

“Of course not,” Dean said with a smile. “It’s just that I am a pen and ink man myself.” And with that, the shop owner picked up a fountain pen and asked, “If it’s alright with you…”

“Sure,” Purvis said with a slight sigh of relief. “Sign it with anything you like so long as it is legible.”

Purvis watched as Dean carefully unscrewed the cap of the fountain pen and bent down to sign the contract lying on the glass lid of the freezer cabinet. As soon as the nib of the pen touched the paper, the Merlin started again with a loud thud and sudden shake causing Dean’s hand to slip.

“Bloody thing. Sorry, it’s a bit wiggle there,” Dean said indicating to his signature.

Purvis picked up the contract and inspected the signature. “What’s a wiggle between friends,” Purvis chuckled as he put the contract into his briefcase.

In the next episode, “Final Practice”, Ruth and Jane work on their starts for the State Rowing Championships the following Sunday while their fathers talk about the financial troubles.

Alerted by security in the building foyer to the arrival of Mr Oshi from the Kaytee Corporation, Ray Purvis paced nervously in the reception area waiting for the lift. “Where’s the tree?” Purvis demanded of the receptionist, “I told you to get one of those banzi things.”

“Bonsai Mr Purvis. They didn’t have any nice ones in the shop so I thought it was better to get these,” the receptionist calmly replied, pointing to a large vase of red and yellow roses on the counter.

“He’s Japanese Narelle! Why would he be interested in a bunch of English roses?”

Narelle was about to answer when the lift bell rang, announcing their important guest. The doors opened, but before Mr Oshi had time to exit the lift or say anything, Ray Purvis rushed forward, stood to attention in front of his visitor and stuttered a badly pronounced Japanese greeting, “Ohayou-gozaimasu Mr Oshi.”

Purvis then formally bowed from the waist, not seeing the hand proffered by Oshi or the closing lift doors. The two doors hit the sides of Purvis’s head, putting it in a momentary pincer hold before bouncing open again. Ray Purvis offered a hasty apology and moved back from the lift doors. As Mr Oshi stepped into the reception area, he allowed himself a small smile.

The two men stood facing each other in front of the reception counter. Purvis, uncomfortable, unsure, and wary of bowing once more, suddenly thrust forward his hand, poking the now bowing Mr Oshi in the eye with his index finger.

The Japanese businessman caught sight of Narelle trying not to laugh as he straightened up and burst out laughing himself. “I think it might be safer for both of us, Mr Purvis, if we curtail the formalities and get straight down to business,” Mr Oshi said in almost perfect Oxford English, confounding his host.

Ray Purvis regained his composure and chuckled weakly. “Good idea Mr Oshi, let’s go through to my office. You better tell Ralph, Narelle,” Purvis said turning to address his receptionist.

Catching sight of the vase of flowers on the counter, Mr Oshi stopped to inspect them. “Lovely roses Miss Narelle, did you pick them yourself?”

“No sir,” Narelle replied, “but I did choose them at the florist.”

The Japanese business man smiled. “Pick and choose,” he thought to himself for he had long been fascinated by the English language with so many meanings for some words and many different words having the same meaning. “I see. Very nice, old fashioned French if I’m not mistaken?”

“That’s right Sir,” Narelle said with admiration before the men entered Purvis’s office.

The negotiations with Mr Oshi went smoothly, but not quite as Ray Purvis had expected. The Kaytee Corporation had no desire to become involved in a shopping centre. They were, however, after a property of about the same size as the proposed centre.

“It’ll be difficult,” Purvis told his visitor. “There’s very little in your offer for Purvis Holdings, Mr Oshi.”

“That may be Mr Purvis,” Oshi said with a controlled smile. “But you must understand that Kaytee Corporation’s plans for the site differ somewhat from your own.”

“I’m sure we’ll be able to work something out,” Purvis said hopefully.

“I hope so,” Oshi replied. “The offer is also conditional on our plans being accepted by your authorities.”

“With my contacts in the council,” Purvis laughed dismissively, “I can get you building permission for virtually anything short of a nuclear power station.”

“There are some restrictions of course Mr Oshi,” Ralph added. “The site is zoned light industrial, but so as long your building is no higher than that in the original plans, there shouldn’t be any problem.”

“If not a shopping centre, what are you proposing Mr Oshi, if you don’t mind me asking?” Purvis asked.

Satisfied with what he had heard so far, Mr Oshi told of his desire to build a fish processing and cold storage facility to service the needs of the Pacific Ocean drift net fishing fleets.

“It’ll be the largest complex of its type in the world. Fully integrated and capable of preparing everything from fresh sashimi to canned cat food,” Mr Oshi said with an ominous chill in his voice.

Ralph Fly was horrified. He had never suffered any pangs of conscience over the way Purvis Holdings had exploited countless fellow humans over the years, but the use of drift nets, silent marine walls of death, appalled him. Ray Purvis, on the other hand, was impressed by Mr Oshi.

“It’s essential the purchase of all the land is completed before our plans become public, Mr Purvis,” Oshi insisted.

“No worries there,” Purvis replied confidently. “We’ve got the lot, apart from the two small properties, and they’re signing this week.”

“Good. We may have to face a backlash from your greenies because of our fishing practices. I don’t want to leave them any avenues to jeopardise the development.”

The men continued to negotiate finally arriving at a price far short of what Ray Purvis had been hoping for at the start of the day. Mr Oshi, who had detailed knowledge of the financial problems facing Purvis Holdings, offered to sweeten the deal with a sizable cash advance.

Ray Purvis had run out of options. The Kaytee offer would allow him to clear the debts to the banks. With the company accounts unfrozen, Purvis Holdings would be able to continue trading. The only other choice was bankruptcy, and that was no choice at all for a never-say-die entrepreneur like Ray.

In the next episode, “Dean Signs”, Ray Purvis drops in unannounced on the deli and crystal shop. Dean Thomas agrees to sell the deli, but the planets are not appropriately aligned for Sky Crystal to make such an important decision.