However, in my opinion the origin of the problem does not lie in the fact that checkpoints are not an appropriate mean to evaluate the accessibility of websites. The origin of the problem is, again, that organisations do not understand the importance of accessibility and do not address it seriously.

Years ago the accessibility community pointed out that the checklist would be open to abuse. And now I say that we have our evidence.

Yes they are helpful in setting a direction and starting point. But when the completion of the checklist is seen as all that is required you really have to question what is the point.

I don’t have the solution (yet) we need something, maybe a stronger peer review process, that can stop this wholesale checklist abuse.

These doors are indeed well labelled and their design does seem strange. They remind me of restaurant kitchen doors, where the one on the left is for ‘pushing out’ and the one on the right is for ‘pushing ‘in’. That is, no one should have to ‘pull’, as they may not have their hands free to pull and no one should crash into anyone else if they use the wrong door, as the doors would only open one way.

Perhaps these were restaurant kitchen doors that have been converted and the ‘pull’ handle added later?

In such a fast paced environment, you want those who are leaving/entering to be using a consistent door

How do you think this should influence our testing in the fuuture? Should we be starting users on Google with an explicit instruction to use a specific site?