Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Olympics Heading for New Accessibility Suit?

Rated 3.72 (Ratings: 4) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(11 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of MartinB

Martin Burns

Member info | Full bio

User since: April 26, 1999

Last login: October 04, 2009

Articles written: 128

As previously reported, the organising committee for the Sydney 2000 Olympics were successfully sued by Bruce Maguire over the official Sydney Games site being inaccessible to users with disabilities. That action only cost AU$20,000 in fines (plus legal costs), but caused a great deal of PR damage to the Games and the Olympic movement.

It would seem that the organisers of the Salt Lake 2002 games are heading for the same fate.

A quick and dirty analysis shows that the site fundamentally depends on Javascript to display content to the user, from the opening page (and note that this is the full HTML):


<html>

<head>
	<script language=javascript>
		document.write("<title>" + ((location.host.indexOf("nbcolympics")>-1) ? "NBC Olympics" : "Olympics") + "</title>");
	</script>
</head>
<script language=javascript src=/x/inc/get_guid.asp></script>
<script language=javascript src=/x/js/xtd_funct.js></script>
<script language=javascript src=/x/js/stdframe.js></script>
<noscript><p>Javascript must be enabled to view this site.</noscript>
</html>

To the link to registration (It's a Javascript popup):

<a class="yblnk" href="javascript:OCW('https://secure.saltlake2002.com/register/','','');">
<img border="0" src="/c/0/32/468/oly_ss_huetgeneric_table.jpg" alt="Image: Register and receive free screensaver" />
</a>

Even more worrying is that the link to the Paralympic Games - yes, the games exclusively for disabled athletes - is also only accessible with Javascript.

This is a pretty clear breach of one of the Priority 1 WAI guidelines:

6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
For example, ensure that links that trigger scripts work when scripts are turned off or not supported (e.g., do not use "javascript:" as the link target). If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint 11.4. Refer also to guideline 1.

Still, at least they've remembered to add ALT attributes.

Martin Burns has been doing this stuff since Netscape 1.0 days. Starting with the communication ends that online media support, he moved back through design, HTML and server-side code. Then he got into running the whole show. These days he's working for these people as a Project Manager, and still thinks (nearly 6 years on) it's a hell of a lot better than working for a dot-com. In his Copious Free Time™, he helps out running a Cloth Nappies online store.

Amongst his favourite things is ZopeDrupal, which he uses to run his personal site. He's starting to (re)gain a sneaking regard for ECMAscript since the arrival of unobtrusive scripting.

He's been a member of evolt.org since the very early days, a board member, a president, a writer and even contributed a modest amount of template code for the current site. Above all, he likes evolt.org to do things because it knowingly chooses to do so, rather than randomly stumbling into them. He's also one of the boys and girls who beervolts in the UK, although the arrival of small children in his life have knocked the frequency for 6.

Most likely to ask: Why would a client pay you to do that?

Least likely to ask: Why isn't that navigation frame in Flash?

The view from lynx

Submitted by garrett on January 21, 2002 - 16:28.

                                                         Salt Lake 2002



 This site requires javascript enabled on your browser. 




Commands: Use arrow keys to move, '?' for help, 'q' to quit

Really useful isn't it.....*sigh*

login or register to post comments

And forget about validation...

Submitted by OKolzig37 on January 21, 2002 - 17:51.

Yeesh.

Just for giggles, I ran the site through the W3C Validator, and after a few modifications (because it's in frames, defines no character encoding and declares no !DOCTYPE), the validator returned over 200 errors on the center content frame (when I used HTML 4.01 Transitional as a starting point).

Here's a direct link to the carnage.

login or register to post comments

MEOW!! Critics are hypocrites

Submitted by grinder on January 22, 2002 - 08:40.


boo-hoo for the .00001% of the population who'll rage against the committee no mater what these organisations do. I worked for a company who was also publicly lambasted in such a public and fair (!) manner, and y'know what: they ALL also offered their "consulting services" as an addendum to their bitching. What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites!

It's like me bitching about not being able to understand postscript when I get a pdf. Maybe the goverment should spend 1% of the star-wars budget on screen reader-research so this waste of bandwidth can be put to bed. Or maybe we should focus on the really important things in life--this is NOT one of them!

The web is a "what you get is what you pay for meadium," so if a site bugs you, DON"T GO TO IT. Don't buy their merchandise, ideas, porno, and THAT will "show them." Fortunately, 99.99999% of people enjoy the committee's site, so the rest of people can just deal.

Enter the age of the "web critic," equally insufferable as the victim mentality that pays homage to it.

login or register to post comments

re: Meow ...

Submitted by luminosity on January 22, 2002 - 09:12.

No matter what they do? I work by myself, and produce pages for my sites by myself. Ok, I don't have an entire olympics to do, but I don't have that budget either. And I pride myself upon being accessible. Not having an accessible site, even for something unimportant is like a blind person asking you to guide them to the toilet, and taking them to the opposite side of the building. It's not just bad for business, it's also just plain rude.

And if you don't like the opinions presented here then why don't you follow your own advice and don't come here.

login or register to post comments

RE: MEOW!! Critics are hypocrites

Submitted by OKolzig37 on January 22, 2002 - 10:38.

I was originally going to respond to all of your points, but I believe these two are the most important.

boo-hoo for the .00001% of the population who'll rage against the committee no mater what these organisations do! [...]

Well, first, let me say, that it will not be me. I would love to write the follow-up article entitled "Olympics Site Makes 180-degree Turnaround in Accessibility." But one of the points of this article is to show that they should have learned from past mistakes, but did not.

[...] Or maybe we should focus on the really important things in life--this is NOT one of them!

What? Accessibility? There are reasons that most civilized countries in the world have laws regarding accessibility for those with disabilities, because most civilized countries in the world today have some concept of equal treatment under the law. It's about fairness, it's not about "Oh, well, I hate tool tips in Internet Explorer so I won't use ALT attributes." If you don't like the rules, tough. And, yes, they are rules (here are the American ones):

  • Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1998
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
  • Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act
  • Assistive Technology Act of 1998
  • Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

login or register to post comments

Re: MEOW!! Critics are hypocrites

Submitted by marlene on January 22, 2002 - 16:38.

boo-hoo for the .00001% of the population who'll rage against the committee no mater what these organisations do.

Conversely, boo hoo for organizations who get sued and/or penalized for not running their businesses lawfully. Amazing they'd turn around and make the same very public mistake again, only two years later. (Then again, the Olympics is a huge enterprise, and I wouldn't be surprised if another lawsuit proved to be just a drop in their bucket.)

Fortunately, 99.99999% of people enjoy the committee's site, so the rest of people can just deal.

I'm curious where you get your statistics.

Speaking of which, according to the US Census Bureau 1/5 of the American population lives with some kind of disability (a figure that will only grow as the population ages). I suspect your statement that only one hundred thousandth of one percent of the population will "rage against the committee" is a tad wrong.

login or register to post comments

Patronising and uninformed

Submitted by MartinB on January 22, 2002 - 17:06.

Grinder, I really don't know where you could get such uninformed opinions from. They're certainly pretty patronising. It's exactly this kind of approach which lost AOL $1m in settlement and made an idiot of the Sydney Olympics. I would also point out that most web designers who have an subject matter knowledge formed that opinion on the back of some hard-core campaigning by organisations like the UK's Royal National Institute for the Blind. Me for one.

Anyway, onto some of your points:

boo-hoo for the .00001% of the population who'll rage against the committee no mater [sic] what these organisations do.

I didn't write this news piece to rage against the Games Committee. I wrote it to draw attention to the fact that the Games Committee is clearly disenfranchising a part of the population the Olympic Movement has always made strenuous efforts to support (ie people with disabilities). It's extremely unlikely that they don't care about users with disabilities (otherwise, why hold a Paralympics?), more likely that they've been royally screwed by their development agency.

I worked for a company who was also publicly lambasted in such a public and fair (!) manner, and y'know what: they ALL also offered their "consulting services" as an addendum to their bitching.

Note that I'm not offering mine.

Or maybe we should focus on the really important things in life--this is NOT one of them!

This level of ignorance is why we have laws. If people won't do what's right by their own internal discipline (through laziness, malice, ignorance or a combination), then measures must be taken to enforce compliance.

login or register to post comments

It's not just accessibility...

Submitted by paulnattress on January 24, 2002 - 04:19.

The site also has some serious usability and information architecture problems.

Those drop down menus? JavaScript menus? Not a good idea. There's far too many options and sub-options. At certain levels within the site they stop becomming drop downs, forcing the user to use a diferent navigation system. There's no facility for showing a visited state to the links contained within the drop down menus, making the process of browsing through lots of pages quite difficult.

There's more problems, lots more. If anything good comes of the mistakes made with this site it should be that accessibility issues will once again be in the news, thereby boosting the public awareness.

login or register to post comments

More bad press for Olympic site

Submitted by StOne on January 24, 2002 - 09:43.

Webreference.com has a few words about the site's use of JavaScript. The site also seems to be unusable for Mac IE 5 users:
on my Mac running IE5, *every page* spawns a JavaScript error. Unsupported objects, syntax errors, this does not engender confidence in a site. So if you are a Mac user, you might turn off JavaScript to get rid of the errors right? Guess what. Gotta have JavaScript enabled to use the site. See my problem here?

This piece also mentions a few other failings of the Olympic site. It really does make one wonder.
The Webreference.com writeup also links to Shirley Kaiser's Accessibility Lockout for Olympics 2002 Site -- Again?!

Not that MOST of us need to be convinced of the need for usability and accessibility, and I can't add anything except these links to the replies to the "meow" comment.

login or register to post comments

Look at the statistics

Submitted by shellmag on January 31, 2002 - 16:24.

"boo-hoo for the .00001% of the population who'll rage against the committee no mater what these organisations do."

According to a Harris Poll survey, Americans with disabilities spend twice as much time on the internet as those without disabilities

According to the World Health Organization, 2000, there are 500 million people worldwide with disabilities, and 54 million in the US - that's 20% of the population!

Not to mention... 30% of all web users do not load images for various reasons...imagine the users without the capability to use a site that uses JavaScript!

login or register to post comments

Lusaunne is no place for the naive

Submitted by BitchFree on October 19, 2002 - 11:53.

So, in essence the Olympic Committee is being asked to do the "right thing," even in building its massive website to suit a minority audience, because they supposedly lead the "free world" in some sort of grand ethical march into the 24rth century. That naive kind of thinking won't get the impaired crowd any leverage. The Olympic committee is a business that is only interested in profit and grand & pomp pangentry.

Reality: the TV broadcasts for the games made $500 million. The web generated little more than $20 million in business (generous estimate). Unless forced into the deal at the outset (i.e. it is agreed UPFRONT) in the contract that the committee makes with its web degveloper(s), that explicity states EXACTLY what tags, codes, standards will be adhered too, the website will be a purebreed results and merchandising conduit (with the the tv schedule added for, again, you guessed it, the broadcasters). Amazing that the economics of the situation could be so clearly overlooked.

Go to the source, go to the sponsors!

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.