Segala's affiliate program should turn an interesting concept and technology into a world beating solution.
To substantiate that view I need to explain the background. Segala was founded in 2002 in Dublin. It provides services to review web sites for conformance to accessibility standards, such as Section 508 and WCAG, and to issue a certificate of compliance to those that pass.
There are a number of organisations that provide this type of service but Segala created a package which I believe is unique:
- A visual trustmark on every relevant page.
- The visual trustmark is only available from the Segala authority server site. This ensures that it is a valid and authorised use of the mark.
- The logo is a hyperlink that provides more detail about the certificate including: the valid to and from dates, the claims of the guidelines complied with (and hence those not complied with), and which areas of a site are compliant. The granularity of the certificate enables a process of continuous improvement to be implemented.
- Crucially the certificate also provide a method to ‘report misuse of the Trustmark’; anyone finding an erroneous claim can report it to Segala who will investigate and, if it is upheld, will report back to the website owners.
- Segala have defined a process to validate a web site against the relevant standards. This process may use automated testing tools but will also include human verification. The results are provided to the owners in a document that could be used in a court of law if required.
- The Trustmark is machine-readable. This mean that search engines can incorporate it into their algorithms. As an example Segala has developed a prototype browser extension that will highlight result pages with the Trustmark.
- The technology is supported by new standards that are being developed with the active support of Segala.
These are all excellent concepts and technology and Segala customers, such as O2, have benefited because it provides a way of ensuring that companies sub-contracted to develop websites and content comply with the standards.
However, for a trustmark to be really important it must be widely used and recognised across the web. Segala, by themselves, are not capable of creating that mass acceptance for the following reasons:
- Segala is a relatively new and small company that cannot generate the worldwide PR and marketing.
- Segala could not grow fast enough or wide enough to support a mass certification of websites worldwide.
- There is a perceived conflict of interest if one company is the validator and the certificate authority. It is believed that you can only get a certificate if you spend a lot of money on consulting.
This is why the affiliate program is so essential. The program enables website designers, developers and accessibility agents to become affiliates and then issue certificates. Segala will ensure the continuing quality of the certificates by running spot checks and monitoring feedback. If an affiliate is seen to be issuing sub-standard certificates it could eventually loose its affiliate status and hence its ability to issue certificates.
This model allows the Trustmark to become pervasive across the web because:
- Demand for validation can be met by increasing the number of affiliates.
- The cost of validation will be kept down, by competition between the affiliates, and may be included in the development cost.
- The individual affiliates will generate PR and will use the certification process to improve their marketing.
- Existing accessibility agents can continue to provide their consultancy and even their own logos and in addition provide the Segala Trustmark; so there need not be a conflict between them and Segala.
- A significant affiliate community will persuade search engines, browsers and other specialist technologies to recognise and take advantage of the Trustmark.
I believe that all website owners, website developers and accessibility agents should consider the use of Segala as the accessibility certification authority.
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments on this item. We suggest trying to contact the author directly.
26th September 2006: 'Dermot O'Mahony' said:
I've been involved with Segala throughout discussions about this. I think this is a great step forward for the whole Internet Industry. Development standards are sadly lacking (or at least, the follow thru is lacking). The great thing about this process is that it can be applied to any coding standards equally and sets a baseline for standards management and compliance going forward.
Segala have been by far the most pro-active organisation in terms of driving compliance to standards and an effective method of policing them. In my opinion they are the knowledge leaders in this area in terms of commercial implementation and implications. This programme shows a real commitment to getting WAI compliance across the industry and encouraging builders and designers to comply.
I'd love to see this kind of technology used for content labelling, adult content, child protection etc. too
Reply to Dermot O'Mahony?
4th October 2006: 'Peter Abrahams' said:
In reply to sunitagurl.
In all the automated testing tool vendors, Segala and the accessibility community agree with sunitagurl that automated testing by itself is inadequate and misleading.
However I disagree that the only use of automated testing is for preliminary testing. It is obviously important at that stage as it will quickly and effeciently highlight many simple errors.
But it is also valuable during the promotion of content to production, at this stage the automated testing should not pick up any errors, if it does it implies that there is a problem with the development process and the manual testing.
Automated testing of complete sites is also valuable post production to ensure that errors have not slipped in under the radar (suggesting inadequate promotion/publishing processes), or changes in one area having unintended and unnoticed impacts on other areas (the most obvious is the breaking of links).
Exhaustive manual testing of a large web site is not possible on a continuing basis (especially as this should include testing by users with a variety of disabilities), however exhaustive automated testing can be done on a regular basis. Although a clean automated test result is not a guarantee of an accessible site; a failure of an automated test is a guarantee that he site is not fully accessible.
I would suggest that regular automated testing should be part of the requirements of a trustmark.
Reply to Peter Abrahams?
