Ehehe, yeah. I mostly do interface architecture and process analysis, so I tend to pay attention to things that trip people up -- like icons, font sizes, and color uses. Eventually I guess it just gets to be second-nature, or something.
I think the real issue just hinges on whether or not it'd be possible to get a group of folks who use the technologies to confirm that layouts really are tech-friendly, before tagging a layout as such. Though if there are users who attend university, they can usually do the check as well, if they can get access to their university's accessibility labs -- most fair-sized universities have at least one machine with a screen reader or magnifier. EDU sites are required by law to be 508-compliant (as are all recipients of significant govt funding), so they usually have a way to test -- plus to have it available for students to use who need such tools, which can be pretty expensive software. So there are options out there, for testing a design for true accessibility.
(And we haven't even gotten into the question of localization, but that's a backend issue.)
no subject
I think the real issue just hinges on whether or not it'd be possible to get a group of folks who use the technologies to confirm that layouts really are tech-friendly, before tagging a layout as such. Though if there are users who attend university, they can usually do the check as well, if they can get access to their university's accessibility labs -- most fair-sized universities have at least one machine with a screen reader or magnifier. EDU sites are required by law to be 508-compliant (as are all recipients of significant govt funding), so they usually have a way to test -- plus to have it available for students to use who need such tools, which can be pretty expensive software. So there are options out there, for testing a design for true accessibility.
(And we haven't even gotten into the question of localization, but that's a backend issue.)