I’d had a discussion with my MSP earlier in the year about better accessibility for MSPs web sites, which are after all publicly funded (parliamentary expenses) to share information about public sector work. When crap like this is tolerated from our elected representatives, is it any wonder clients resist as well?
http://www.christinegrahame.com/

Absolutely. It should be baked into the whole process. Can’t remember where I saw it – possibly Alison’s blog – but someone said that funding bodies for web tech things could help a lot by making accessibility a key requirement for anything they fund.

Client resistance is still a big one too: firms think it’ll be expensive, don’t get the “accessible design is multi-platform design” thing, want to tick as few regulatory boxes as they can possibly get away with.

Also – I’ve never actually checked to see if this here site is accessible, just assumed that it is because it’s on WP. I think that lack of thought is pretty widespread.

IMHO accessibility in this country is regarded as a box-ticking exercise – IE what standards do we have to achieve, what tick boxes must we run through – rather than an ongoing process of understanding audiences and responding to their needs. Part and parcel with the UK’s obsession with accreditations and standards in general. It’s why the recent BSI draft standards on accessibility had me ready to punch something. It is just the totally wrong way to go about it – they are seeking to make it more bureaucratic and rigid rather than more flexible and responsive.

Here is a book on accessibility which sums up how it should be done:
http://www.uiaccess.com/accessucd/

Interestingly the two accessible sites I’ve done are for motor disabilities (MND) and cognitive disabilities (bipolar). Accessibility isn’t just for the blind and deaf.