This sort of article, published by SiteMorse, just doesn't help. It's taking the same stance as the DDA itself has taken with respect to accessibility, going for the bullying approach as opposed to advocating standards and encouraging compliance. Do you really think that the DDA (or the RNIB and RNID for that matter) is actively trying to break standards and become non-compliant?
Accessibility can either be tackled from the perspective of "look at the benefits you can achieve", or one of "if you don't comply, this is what's gonna happen" - the carrot vs. stick approach. The former will be better for everyone, and we should only resort to the latter for sites that blatantly flout standards and ignore subsequent advice.
The only worthwhile part of the article is the reference to conflicting standards. This is true and has caused frustration, not to mention unnecessary spend, in the past. My view is that the W3C should lead the way, and that bodies such as the RNIB/D should be responsible for helping people to code to these standards.
Finally, the article seems to criticise user testing, suggesting that automated testing is superior. Pardon my French, but this is horse-shit. Just as automated testing can't fully replace manual testing for standard functionality testing, nor can it be used as a blanket for accessibility testing. One of the best things that the RNIB brought to the table was the view that standards provide a framework, but the complexity involved in website implementation means that it's not a case of pass/fail. Each business problem will present different obstacles, and will be solved in different ways. Something that passes an automated test may be horrible for the user and vice versa.
The stick won't work on this occasion. We have to use the carrot. After all, carrots are purportedly good for your sight. (SORRY!!!)
