[LINK] ABC Mobile Web Site Failed Accessibility Test

[Tom Worthington]

At 10:21 AM 20/03/2009, George Bray wrote:
>... Tom, I think it's fair enough for you to pull up the ABC on their
>accessibility work ... they take the issue seriously ...

Okay, perhaps I was a little hard on the ABC. I am not so harsh with 
commercial media organisations, because I do not expect much of them.

>I don't agree, however, that innovative media groups like the ABC 
>should curtail their exploration of delivery on new devices using 
>new software for the sake of getting it 100% right for every browser ...

I suggest the ABC should do what they can to provide a service 
accessible to people with a disability. Given that the law requires 
them to do this, it does not seem a lot to ask. The techniques to do 
this are well known, not hard to implement and should help delivery 
for new devices.

Given that the front page of the ABC mobile web site had a very 
obvious accessibility flaw, it would be prudent for the ABC to now 
check the rest of the site. The "you complain and then we will fix 
it" approach does not seem sufficient to me and probably is unlawful.

There is no similar legal obligation for the ABC to make its mobile 
service widely available, but it seems a good business strategy not 
to limit it the service to just iPhones and Android devices. If they 
were to follow  the W3C's recommendations for the design of mobile 
web pages, that would make the service more widely available.

>I can bet they've had a few spectacular failures too, but I submit 
>that this should not stifle them in their quest for pushing the 
>envelope of media delivery. ...

The ABC needs to balance innovation with reliable information 
delivery. They are not simply reporting the news, or providing 
entertainment. The ABC seems to be taking the same ad-hoc approach to 
providing emergency information as they have to accessibility. As a 
result the "spectacular failure" could result in mass casualties and 
the ABC staff involved can expect to be answering questions in court.

The inquiry into the Canberra 2003 bushfires reported a 45 minute 
delay between when the authorities issued an instruction and the ABC 
sounding the Standard Emergency Warning Signal. 
<http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1797/chapter_5.pdf#page=11>. 
A similar problem with a tsunami warning could result in tens of 
thousands dead.

As an example of what can go wrong, the Pacific Tsunami Warning 
Center (PTWC) issued a warning 19 March 2009 after a magnitude 7.7 
earthquake near Tonga. While the text based warning messages worked 
as planned, there were problems with the HTML versions not 
displaying. NOAA have been working on advanced ways to display the 
warnings. But as with the ABC, I think they should get the basics 
right first. See: 
<http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/03/fault-in-pacific-tsunami-warning-system.html>.

An example of what to do is the new Marmaray rail tunnel linking the 
European and Asian parts of Istanbul. The train control centre will 
receive earthquake information directly from the Kandilli Early 
Warning System. They are not going to depend on someone sending a 
fax: 
<http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/03/turkish-undersea-railway-earthquake.html>.

If the ABC is unable, or unwilling, to plan an effective emergency 
service, the Australian Government could reduce ABC funding and use 
the money to implement something like the US Emergency Alert System 
(EAS). But I do not think that is a good idea: 
<http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/03/australian-emergency-alert-system.html>.



Tom Worthington FACS HLM tom.worthington at tomw.net.au Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd            ABN: 17 088 714 309
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617                      http://www.tomw.net.au/
Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Australian National University