Empowering procurement - could this be a route to improving Customer Experience

22 Jul 2014

  • Tweet this item
  • share this item on Linkedin

Lawrence Shaw, CEO of digital insight provider Sitemorse, gives a personal view on what could be done to make things better.

How about clearer, more specific purchasing standards - and while we are at it, let’s make suppliers accountable?


Having been watching the arguments and counter-arguments over web accessibility for a decade now, I’d like to give a personal view on what’s gone wrong and how I think we could make things better.

This may be seen as a bit like lobbing a hand grenade into the debate, so I have to declare an interest at the outset.

As a supplier of automated web testing (aside from any arguments about the pros or cons – automatic testing is not the be-all and end-all of accessibility, but rather a key part of the compliance mix) I’d like to give my view on why so many websites are just not accessible.

For a considerable time, my Sitemorse colleagues and I have been looking at key reasons so many sites often lack even the basics of accessibility – even though they often claim 'we are accessible to xxxx' on an accessibility page.

I'm certain the majority of site managers want to or do not deliberately go out to miss some of the basics and then make claims which are clearly not true.

In canvassing opinion on the issue, it seems the cause could be across a number of areas;
- CMS vendors (some are far better than others) often make lots of promises about 'compliance to such-and-such standard’ and say content cannot be published if there are any issues or non-compliance.

- Digital Agencies also invariably say they build to certain standards. But who's checking them? We were recently advised by a major retailer completing a re-launch that "Our agency has advised us we do not need to run automated tools prior to sign off". What a great position to be in, build a site, deliver and then audit it yourself. But if you think about it, that does not make good business sense.

- Launch deadlines - so many site owners seem to complete their nice marketing checks and tick the boxes they like before going live. Accessibility (along with good page code etc) can seem to them to be either uninteresting – or important.

- Procurement - are site owners really aware exactly what standards are being contracted to, and how will they be checked? Taking the word of a supplier is all well and good, but not best practice in any other area of business.

Despite the best efforts from the likes of Sitemorse, and our competitors such as SiteImprove, Magus (Active Standards), HiSoftware who produce detailed reports and bang on about how we "must have accessible this, you are failing this" when the most recent web standard, WCAG2.0 produces so many issues that are not easy to see or understand, it’s frankly a great excuse for senior executives to cop out of the whole issue and say 'too difficult'.

The statistics point to good reasons to have an accessible web presence - but the reality points, perhaps, to too many promises not delivered.
Any banging of a legal drum can fall somewhat on deaf ears. A while ago, for example, we advised the DRC (UK Disability Rights Commission) that their site had basic accessibility failings such as missing "alt text" on images.

The commission’s response was, in brief "Oh, it’s a new site, with new content".

Their agency (Reading Room) tried many ways to dismiss our findings, and even after we demonstrated the failings had been on the site for months (we record the exact page and can 'prove' exactly what was online) nothing much happened - bar the ‘fixing’ of the alt text.

In my view, what’s needed in dealing with this matter from all sides, pretty much every day is a more practical set of guidelines / standards, ones that are understandable, encompass all and can be managed and acted on when a site doesn't conform.

If the argument is 'the devil is in the detail' when the requirements have to be as detailed as WCAG 2.0 etc then unfortunately there seems to be little chance of moving forward.

Those responsible for purchasing web services could perhaps be the key to a successful change.

How about clearer, more specific purchasing standards - and while we are at it, let’s make suppliers accountable.

When commissioning a new site or re-launching an old one, don't get wowed by the 'doesn't it look great' factor, and - most importantly - have all the 'deliverables' independently audited.

After all, you wouldn’t expect the builder of your new home to sign off their own work. Why do it for your web property?

Over the last 15 years, Sitemorse has developed a unique level of automation that views every single element of every page as a visitor would, checking infrastructure and software, assessing any 3rd-party technology, and noting anything that needs attention. Sitemorse automatically reviews its findings and prioritises them to ensure anything affecting user experience, search or exposing you to risk can be swiftly corrected, down to the line of code that needs fixing.


The Sitemorse INDEX, published quarterly by sector, is a powerful report that rates an organisation’s online presence, comparing it to peers from the same sector. The INDEX is the longest established and independent authoritative website survey and ranking across a number of sectors - looking at the online capability of the main website available for each organization in the sector, covering sectors such as London-listed "Blue Chip" companies, Global 250 and UK top 500 retailers, UK Universities and higher education establishments, Consumer Finance providers, Local and Central Government, Global Life Sciences, UK Police forces, and more.