We’re always going to have these problems with every demonstration of compliance. Some sites will just try to use them to avoid their proper resonsibilities whilst others will only be interested in technical compliance rather than actual accessibility needs. I am all for making supporting pages as practically orientated as possible. What I don’t think we should do is throw the baby out with the bath water.

As for the disabled user who “just wants to get on with things” no one is forced to read an accessibility page or statement and users are quite capable of deciding whether they want to read it or not.

I mean, why was so much attention in the first place focused on panning a page which is only likely be turned to when a user can’t get on with it. Seems like a fundamental flaw in Rosie’s logic to me.

As far as nixing accessibility statements altogether, I have to say no. Regarding saying that people use them to brag or tout how accessible they are — well, if that’s the intent, that’s silly on their point, but it’s on them, not the use of statements. There’s nothing wrong with telling your audience that you care and have provided for them the best you can. But the best accessibility statements, in my opinion, are those that don’t go on and on about compliance or speak in tech-tongues, but rather tell of the presence of certain helpful features and briefly how to use them. To me that is valuable to the user. My own site’s statement is sort of like that.

I think lots of people who could benefit from accessibility features don’t know the hows and whys. Case in point: A disabled web developer I know uses all sorts of web accessibility tools to enjoy [survive] the web, yet he had NEVER heard of web accessibility. He was technical, on the web a lot, and severely handicapped, but had no idea. I opened his eyes to web accessibility. Thus I don’t think we’re ready to show accessibility statements the door. In fact I doubt we’ll ever be ready for such a drastic move.

The example given by the original author regarding the stairs was a little over the top, which does nothing to support the point being made. No, we wouldn’t go so far as to tell someone how to walk up stairs, but we should tell people they’re available. “To access our upper floors, please use the elevators to your left, the escalators to your right, or use the stairs behind you. If you have difficulties, please see the receptionist.” The receptionist can explain how to use stairs if it comes to that. In the case of the web site, the receptionist would be the web master, and they use a contact form or email to get in touch and seek help.

It seems the original author would suggest not offering a sign at all, or one that reads: “If you want to reach our upper floors… figure it out dummy.”

Rule of thumb: Accessibility statements shouldn’t be about meeting legal requirements, and they shouldn’t be about bragging, they should instead be helpful to site visitors who may need them. I don’t feel they should be given the axe.

I like your idea of an all-in-one help page. I do the same thing as a general rule, except I call the page “Site Info.” I will then offer bookmark links leading to the applicable content headings on said page.