Slashdot Mirror
Constructing Accessible Web Sites
What does the book cover?
Chapter 1 is an introduction to web accessibility. I would guess that most people who pick up this book will already know at least a little bit about accessibility, but this chapter provides a good overview and presents some compelling arguments for providing accessible websites. Interestingly, none of these is based on a moral argument -- they are all sound reasons why it is in the interests of an organization to think about accessibility. For example, one of these sections mentions that people with disabilities in the U.S. are estimated to control a discretionary income of over $175 billion. Making a site accessible to these people gives it access to an additional market that non-accessible sites cannot tap.
This first chapter sets the tone for the whole book. It doesn't preach about accessibility for the sake of people with disabilities but rather seeks to convince the reader that accessibility is in their interests.
Chapter 2 concentrates on one of the major reasons for making web sites accessible - laws that compel us to do so. It presents an overview of the state of the law in different parts of the world and a couple of examples of cases involving web usability. I have to admit I skimmed this chapter, as I wanted to get on to the technical stuff.
In Chapter 3, the book gets on to the mechanics of accessibility -- assistive technologies. It provides a short survey of the screen readers and other technologies that are available. I would have liked to have seen more information here on how widespread these systems are, even if just approximate.
Chapter 4 is where the book starts talking about the actual work involved in creating accessible content. It runs down the basics of accessibility (most of it is good practice such as using ALT text and so on). The blink tag even gets a mention and a "good for them!" is given to Opera for not supporting it :) This chapter will not be news to anyone who has done any accessibility work (or even just best-practices web development). The information on how tables are handled by screen readers is good though.
Chapter 5 looks in more detail at navigation. The advice here is good even outside of an accessibility context and there are some good points about 'gotchas' that could make sites difficult to navigate with assistive technologies.
In Chapter 6, input gets the same treatment that navigation got in the last chapter. I wasn't sure about the stuff on PDF forms (does anyone actually use these for web input?) but the advice on HTML forms was great.
Chapter 7 is about testing for section 508 (of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act) compliance. Initially, this was another chapter that I skimmed, as I am not based in the U.S., but then I realised that the testing advice in this chapter is not just useful for section 508 compliance -- it is useful for general accessibility testing.
Chapter 8 studies the accessibility of web development tools themselves. This doesn't apply to me but it was interesting to see how the tools (Dreamweaver, Frontpage, GoLive, Homesite and BBEdit) compare in terms of usability. This would have been a lot easier if there had been a summary table of the ratings given to the applications.
Chapter 9 seemed a little out of place. It is on "Separating Style from Presentation" and basically looks at CSS. I'm sure most people picking up this book will, like me, not need to be taught CSS basics. I skipped the chapter and very nearly missed an interesting little section on aural stylesheets.
I was surprised that chapter 10 was devoted to Flash, as I expected that Flash coverage in an accessibility book would be limited to a few paragraphs lambasting Macromedia for creating such an inaccessible technology. Well, it turns out that the new version of Flash supports accessibility much better than previous ones. This chapter was a real eye-opener for me. Clearly there is more work to be done but well done to Macromedia for putting accessibility support in!
Chapter 11 didn't really interest me much -- it seems to be more aimed at people who need to implement an accessibility strategy, one to hand over to managers once the technical content of the book is digested.
Chapter 12 is a bit of a heads-up on newer technologies and how they affect accessibility. There is some brief but decent discussion of how technologies such as SVG support accessibility.
The last actual chapter, Chapter 13, is a more in-depth look at U.S. web accessibility law. This was another one that I skimmed but one section did catch my eye. There is a discussion that raises the scary idea that web developers may be held liable for inaccessible web sites, even if their client told them to ignore the issue. If this is true, then it is an important point for every web developer to consider -- could you be held liable?
There are three appendices in the book; a quick reference guide summarises the most important advice given in the book, a glossary of terms and an appendix that details the U.S. Section 508 legislation.
Conclusion
Apart from the basic CSS coverage and the more U.S.-specific sections, I found the vast majority of the information in the book to be very interesting to me. The style was good too -- I was surprised that a book with 8 authors manages to maintain such a consistent and readable tone throughout.
Overall, I found the book a much more interesting read than I was expecting it to be. It gives specific advice about the way web sites should be constructed with accessibility in mind and offers strong arguments for following the advice.
It seems that accessibility is going to be a fact of life in web development. That being the case, every web developer needs to learn at least something about it, if only to use as ammunition in interviews. I would definitely recommend Constructing Accessible Websites as a good source of information on the area.
You can purchase Constructing Accessible Web Sites from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
No flash crap...
No blazing colours...
Hmmm. Looks like a lot of web "designers" will be pissed!!!! And out of a job when their bosses read the book!!!!
Bookpool : $32.50
bookpool almost always has the cheapest programming books.
This is a book I think I'll be ordering as soon as my next personal budget is approved. In fact, I think the boss will order it anyway.
:-)
We take this so seriously that we've now hired a blind guy, to ensure that all of our sites are accesible. It's quite amazing what I'd discovered within a month of working alongside him! I've been developing/designing for years now, and thought I was pretty good at alting my tags and commenting my forms... But he's really opened my eyes to how a few simple and quick practices can be adopted to make a BIG difference.
So I recommend books of this ilk (I've not read this one yet obviously). You really can't afford to ignore these matters anymore. Even if just to find out about blindness accessiblity... generally though, Nielsen is right; most sites have significant failings in these areas.
Buy it
M.
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
when you can check your site for these guidelines on the web here?
Bookpool is even cheaper
Some of the laws that are emerging to regulate accessibility look positively scary
These laws are not only scary, they are crazy. If serving people with disabilities is so important, then I'll do it, because it makes financial sense for me to do so. But if these people are largely irrelevant to my target market (say, I run a website for bird-watchers or target-shooting enthusiasts - should I be obligated to put up a version readable by vision-impaired people ?), I should have the right to ignore this segment of the market - at my own peril, of course.
If they're going to legislate me into putting in 'assistive technology' into my websites, why don't they force magazines to put out Braille versions, or make them supply audio-cassettes or CDs with the contents transcribed ? Why don't they widen airplane and car and bus seats so morbidly obese people can sit in them ?
My dad has a good friend that has some sort of degenerative disease that makes his fingers and toes decay, and also makes his vision fade very quickly. A book like this will help people to write websites that he can access too. He has a screen reading device that reads the screen to him, and he also has a small touch pad that he enters morse code to enter keystrokes. He can "type" almost as fast as some non-afflicted people that I know! But, anyways, I think that this book will be very good for any webdesigner out there that is willing to look out for people like him.
I think that there are some new accessibility standards in HTML 5. Mozilla should support them quite quickly once the standard is released - I hope it is soon.
Don't get me wrong, I think that web sites should be made to be accessible to everyone
Again, I don't want to sound like a big jerk here, but where does freedom of expression and freesom to create come into play here? If a person wants a "cool" looking web site, and uses features that don't follow the "code"
However, since I am a web developer, maybe I should pick up a copy of this book to keep up on the laws on this issue
Are there any other good books out there that have similar content?? - anyone???
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
You can't really have an appreciation for accessibility until you need it. It is a good lesson for everyone designing web sites to really try to use them with their monitor turned off and with speech software or on a television screen from across the room.
If anyone cares about your website, then the content matters as much or more than how it looks on your monitor. Well, I guess except for pr0n.
So instead of focusing on making the web accessible for people using alternate access methods, we should settle on a web standard. It would make the alternate methods that much easier to implement.
Other vendors typically have it for less than Amazon. Go to Dealtime and use their book price comparison engine to get the best price. In this case, they report that Walmart has it for $31.49. And if you provide your zip code, they can compare prices including shipping.
And, of course, there's always half.com for used books.
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
I think the way to go about writing univerally readable pages is to incorporate it into W3C HTML specs. I'm not saying eliminating all the things that aren't ADA compliant like javascript and tables. I talking about bringing the standard up to speed and making sure all browsers adhere to it strictly. If all browsers adhere to the standards very strictly then no non-compliant pages can be viewed with them. There's the incentive for webmasters to stick to the standards. Why are standards such an important thing? If everyone adhered to the standards, it would be infinitely easier to build tools for people with disabilities. Audio readers could parse the pages and read them back in an easy to understand way. ADA people could do what they need/want to do without pushing draconian requirements on to the rest of us.
Like I said before, I don't mean to sound like a hardass. I just don't see how the needs of the few could justify draconian legislation. If we could adhere to a standard, it would make things easier for everyone, not just handicap persons.
Really that's funny you say that because I seriously heard on the radio on my way into work that 1500 men die of breast cancer every year. You better be checking for lumps.
When I picked up this book, accessibility was an area that interested me but I am now convinced that it should be in the thoughts of every web developer. Some of the laws that are emerging to regulate accessibility look positively scary and there are lots of other good reasons to take accessibility seriously.
As a disabled person I hope people take accessibility seriously because there are disabled people who need or wish to use the internet as well. I have a permanent visual impairment and one of the worst things is websites that force a tiny font on you instead of respecting your browser's settings for what *you* need the fonts to be sized as. I really hope that people would design ther websites in such a way that both disabled and non-disabled can use them easily, and I know this is totally possible, and doesn't even require any great sacrifice on the part of the designer in having a nice looking site. Unfortunately, of course, I suppose most people won't bother until it becomes a legal requirement. Still it would be nice if they did...
"question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
You hit the sweet spot here. The problem is, with the trend in websites today (all flash/frames/javascript), no-one care.
This is how the BBC tackles this issue: Betsie It was simpler to handle things this way rather than expand rules for coding pages.
Web accessibility doesn't prevent beautiful pages. The Web Accessibility Initiative by the W3C has information on making web pages that degrade well. This means that you can have all the flash, Javascript, ActiveX, and everything else you want, and still let someone using Lynx and a screenreader hear what you have to say.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Why changes millions of webpages instead of making a few screen readers work better? It seems like spending billions of dollars throughout the country on upgrading everyones webpage isn't quite as effecient as spending a few million to research and develop some better OCR technology.
* That doesn't mean using Dreamweaver or any other GUI HTML design software. Real HTML-ers write it by hand. Real Men use vi from what I hear but I like BBEdit for UNIX.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Look at slashdots they are doing the same thing!
It's web designers who are ignorant of the correct use of CSS, and the importance of simple things like how to support non-Javascript browsers who think that accessibility means every page looking the same. It's nonsense.
You can make beautiful, accessible pages if you know what you're doing. A List Apart are hardly ignorant or non-artistic.
Does that look exactly the same as UseIt.com to you?
then you have a bigger problem on your heands!
Who controls the information, controls the world...
This first chapter sets the tone for the whole book. It doesn't preach about accessibility for the sake of people with disabilities but rather seeks to convince the reader that accessibility is in their interests.
Actually I think it more relates to ETHICS -- as it is dealing with one's profession -- but all the same. All the analogies other people have posted about how unfair these laws are and "why don't they make magazine publishers publish their magazines in Braile or spoken-word" are completely missing the point. Using a digital medium such as the Internet, it is easy to make your website easily accessible for persons with disabilities. Is it too hard to use the use of both your hands to enter in a few extra tags so that the Internet is "accessible to all!" You Slashdotters spuge yourselves when you think of how cheap it would be to put together free or close to free Linux boxes and ship them down to South America, yet your "creative expression"? is being denied by having to put in a few extra tags explaining the purpose of a picture. Give me a break you capitalistic freaks.
i want to see all Flash or all dhtml page that is readeble trought the Lynx....
Who controls the information, controls the world...
This site was incredibly useful for me in making my website more accessible.
--Chris http://chris.quietlife.net/
Just make sure that your site is browsable with lynx. That's a pretty good indication that you've placed content and usability above presentation.
Hmm, I wonder how text-to-speech handles the <blink> tag?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I agree with the parent post which asserts that it would be crazy to force accessibility upon private owners. And for the reasons he gives and more, I believe that's why Section 508 does not apply to private websites.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
if most web designers where following the rules made by ignorant and non artistic people web would be boring place...
If most designers focused on usability as much as they focus on "artistic merit", the web would be a lot more legible.
I'm all for cutting edge design, but most web sites have an application function that gets lost in teeny-tiny type, hard-to-read color combinations and excessively busy animation.
Maybe we should go ahead and start a fund to buy a copy of this book for Southwest Airlines ;)
All kidding aside though, as a general rule you can look at your website in lynx in my opinion to tell whether or not it is going to be accessible. I knwo this isn't the best way, but it's an option. Frames of course would be the biggest problem, however creating a text-only version of your website (many government websites have this) and putting the link somewhere near the top of your page is usually considered suitable. No graphics, flash, etc, but with most, or the same functionality of the original site, or at least a SUITABLE level...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Maybe encoding, but not coding.
Mark Pilgrim has a wonderful site at http://diveintoaccessibility.org/
It's set up as a 30-day transformation process, with each day containing a new change. He includes has a few example characters, each with their own unique set of disabilities and/or web-browsing choices, and he explains how each of these people would benefit from said changes.
I may be taking a simplistic view of this, but I've always thought it would be better to let people design buildings, web pages, whatever, however they wanted to, and then leave it to engineers to come up with products to allow accessibility for anyone who can't use the 'normal' methods of access.
Didn't the inventor of the Segway first make a wheelchair that could walk up stairs?
Unfortunately, these solutions are often expensive, but so are the widespread accessibility that is built into products nowadays. Either the company making the product has to pay, or we could subsidize the development and deployment of accessibility tools with a corporate tax. In essence, take the money that's going to be spent on making web pages accessible, and use it to develop and distribute more capable accessibility tools that can read normal web pages.
It's just a thought. I'm not saying it would work.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The law doesn't apply to private sites. There is a section of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508, that addresses web accessibility. Section 508 applies to any site that receives government funding.
However, there is a reasonable expectation that web sites won't exclude a subset of customers. This is not being addressed through any criminal process, but through various civil cases brought against individual sites. One of the most famous, of course, was the Olympic site debacle, for two iterations of the Games. After the 2000 games site was sued for not having such basics as alt-tags or a text-based menu, the 2002 games committed the same mistakes. It's just good web design to allow your code to gracefully degrade, rather than break in anything but the newest and most-overloaded browser.
I know a bit about Section 508 because I've had to do web design for DoD the past several years. Many other DoD sites, I've noticed, claim compliance while using a Flash-based menu or Java applets for buttons. Clueless.
Illegitimi non carborundum
I've seen a lot of peole complaining about the guv'ment legislating their freedom of website-expression with section 508.
.gov or a .state.us then it's likely you need to comply to section508.
Well, there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding, and it would've been better had the reviewer mentioned this.
Section508 applies primarily to governmental websites. So if you're a
If you're a federal or state contractor you may have to comply.
If you're not one of those things, do whatever you want.
However, it may still be in your best interests to at least consider accessibility. You may not necessarily comply with all the W3C priority 1,2, and 3 standards but a few of them isn't going to hurt, and are generally common sense. There's a huge market out there for the disabled - if you ran a brick-n-mortar shop you wouldn't turn away $175billion worth of your customers, so why do it on the web?
It's not like *all* of them are blind, deaf quadraplegics. I know people who use expanded fonts just because their eyesight isn't *great* - they're still legal to drive with glasses, but reading fine print on a screen necessitates assistance. Variable font-sizing and alt tags would suddenly open your website up to a lot of people just like that.
Basically, to help make a site more accessible it doesn't require much - start with your alt tags, maybe longdesc if you're feeling generous, try not to deisgn with 7 layers of nested tables, and use relative font sizes. Most sites won't even need to be fully overhauled to accomplish this, just tweaked, and it can open up the availability to hundreds of thousands more people.
It's not about being politically correct, it's not about avoiding lawsuits, it's about doing what's best for your website and delivering your content to the widest audience.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
I'm surprised that there isn't a chapter on accessibility and dynamic visual data (charts and graphs, etc.). This is probably one of the most difficult things to do in creating an accessible site. Example: how do you get a description of those ever changing stock charts, or sales information? There are lots of data that are displayed graphically that also needs a description to be accessible, but there aren't many tools out there for creating that description dynamically. Corda seems to be one of the only companies that I've found that has a solution for this. Their tools will create a text description whenever you create a graph. Sure the description may not be the best, but most of the time it will do the job.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Accesibility is a right. The things addressed by these issues only force better web design practice. As a designer I want as many people to experience my work as possible and if one of the drawbacks of this is extra development time then so be it.
While there is more to accessiblity than using ALT tags, they are a start, and would probably improve the majority of pages on the web.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
With few exceptions, I've usually found that accomodations to ADA laws (or just accessibility in general) often benefit everyone, not just those targeted.
Examples: Ramped entrances, curb cuts at intersections for sidewalks, large and clear print, low-sided bathtubs, hand-rails everywhere, wider wheelchair entrances, lower switches and controls on walls...
The list goes on, and of course there are exceptions of accomodations that are either counter to the needs of those not at benefit (or just annoying), but generally I've found that a well-designed web site or doorway helps everyone.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can do something about being morbidly obese. It may not be easy, I may have "glandular problems", but I can change it.
Bad example withstanding, your arguments are the same ones I have been using against the ADA for years.
The problem with arguing against the ADA is that it is a noble law. However ill concieved and implimented, it is for noble causes. Anyone who argues against it is an asshole. The common wisdom is that it is right. So no matter what argument you make against it, you are wrong. Your an asshole, and you are trying to argue against common wisdom.
If there is one thing harder to argue against than photographic evidence, it is common wisdom.
"people with disabilities in the U.S. are estimated to control a discretionary income of over $175 billion"
:p
That means "Texans"
j/k
You've got mail. Pattern baldness. - Crow
Building ADA compliant websites pull in some audiences that normally you wouldn't expect. If the font tags are properly coded, and the page devolves well if Style Sheets are turned off, you'd be surprised how your sites assist the elderly who can't see 12 pt text at 1600x1280, but can select a larger default font in thier browser.
Likewise, our major application (initial unemployment registration) can be accessed with an Ipaq IR connected to a nokia cellphone and works well (enough) at 9600 baud.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
You can learn to read. You can't learn to see.
You can lose weight, you can't regain a spinal column.
If you ca'nt read, and you excect me to make an exception for you, that is what makes you something less of a citizen than me, or a blind person. Not that they can't read, just that they want me to make an exception for them because of their ignorance.
This book can be found here on isbn.nu.
I'm all for making this "required reading" for those self-proclaimed "webmasters" and "web developers", who use tables for layout, specify font sizes, override user defaults, remove titlebars, try to disable right-click, and a whole host of other things that define the ineptitude of these individuals, and their lack of skill in proper design.
Come join some of us on #html on Efnet and you'll see the defining class of pedants like myself, and the others who insist that they aren't breaking usability by full-screening a browser window, removing all of the titlebars and then disabling right-click, and setting it to onBlur() by default.
People should also remember accessible sites are also nice and searchable sites!
My clients come to me wondering why Google doesn't index them - their site is a mess! All those fancy Flash animations are just plain opaque to the search engines and screen readers, of course they can't navigate!
That's right, design for Lynx, and screw the 90 percent of the web surfers that can see...
I'm working on making my website (see below) friendly for the sight-disabled. Any suggestions? I'm a bit stumped.
Maybe there is a dancer that could make some good money exploiting some guys wheel chair fetish.
Hell she could probably just guilt a bunch of drunk guys out of money, wouldn't even have to turn them on.
If they don't have a ramp, they are not allowing her to work. They should have been sued. Even if they wanted to hire her she couldn't work there. The fact that they didn't have a ramp showed, a) they weren't compliant with the law, and b) they had no intention of hiring her (because of her handi-cap), also against the law.
Ok, so I'm illiterate. Since I can't read, you have to have an option to navigate your website by graphics only. As well as Text only for the blind. And then a nice mix for those who can see/read/hear/etc. You can't accomodate every group, why should you be required by law? I think it's great if you want to make your web site handicap accesible, but if we're going to mandate it by law, where does it stop? Just a thought
Instead of more crap to accommodate the impaired, why don't we redirect our energies, our funds, and our legislation to find medical cures for these imparities? In every aspect of life, we only seem to want to treat the symptoms because treating the source requires to much effort. All the more reason for embryonic research.
If I run a commercial site, where does the responsibility end? Must the site be made accessible to the blind? How about those who are blind and deaf? And how about those who are blind, deaf, mute, and paralyzed from the neck down? There's always someone who will be discriminated against because of their disability. It wouldn't be called a disability if you were able to do whatever you wanted. I'm not indifferent to the needs of the disabled, and I can certainly understand having businesses make a reasonable effort to accommodate the disabled as best as possible; but where do you draw the line?
My point is that no one needs to use the internet. People got along just fine before internet use was popular. Now we have a great convenience to do everything from ordering pizza to booking flights online. Does this mean that everyone must by law be able to use these conveniences? We don't allow the blind to fly airplanes, nor do we allow multiple amputees to fly the space shuttle. In those cases, there's a safety hazzard, obviously, but we're still denying them that. I don't see too many blind atheletes running around either (although the ref' sometimes appears to be). Should all businesses be forced to serve a customer over the telephone who's blind, deaf, and mute? Surely it's possible to serve this customer over the phone, but you know what? People got along fine before phones as well. As a side note, I don't believe newpapers are very accessible to the blind either.
Should we bring the web experience for everyone to a lower level to make it more accessible to people? Two websites? Do you know how much more that would cost a company like Southwest Airlines? The more likely scenerio is that if they were forced to make it accessible to the blind, we'd see a very, very wattered-down, much less user-friendly website where Southwest's site used to be. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair to make it less accessible to millions just to make it a little more accessible to dozens. As far as the cheaper web faires, I'm sure Southwest would be happy to make a best effort to ensure they help the disabled who contact them via telephone to get the best faires possible. Has anyone even asked?
My point is simply this - we should be thankful for whatever modern conveniences we're able to make use of, as we're much better off than those who came before us. Those who are paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc are now much better off than ever before. But don't think for a moment that that entitles every single person to enjoy every single convenience. I think this is one instance where more government intervention isn't going to help matters at all.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
No one is trying to regulate how a page looks. These laws are not intended for that. What they are trying to regulate is how the page is coded, so that it can be easily (and automatically) converted to other formats by accessibility software.
This does not have the slightest impact on the ability to design a page. There is no page out there which could not be coded in an accessible manner. It's just a matter of getting people to do it.
And incidentally, you may find that coding your page in an accessible manner opens up new possibilities, if you're willing to look at them. Everyone knows, for example, about the visual styling properties of CSS. Not many know about the aural styling properties; you can set voice, tone, speed, even apparent position. And there's even some interesting stuff you can do with Braille in CSS, if you really want to. Or don't; as long as the information gets through that's the important thing, so you don't have to design this part of it if you don't want to. But the possibilities... oh, the possibilities...
I think accessability is a good thing - especially for "public" websites. That said, I find it interesting that I work for a company that builds/maintains a fairly significant site for the Gov. and we've asked them several time when they want to schedule us some time/money to making it more accessable, and they say it's not a priority - even after we point out the laws, etc.!
Don't these people do any testing? If you want an example, just check out the link for the Lulu Tech Circus here on /. This site just sucks.
90% of websites out there are not useable to anyone out there due to poor design and overuse of flash, DHTML, javascript.
Not saying that things shouldn't be accessible too though...
All developers need to remember is that HTTP stands for Hyper TEXT Transfer protocol.
Not Hyper Text, Graphics, Java, JavaScript, Shockwave Flash, and MP3 Transfer Protocol (or HTGJJSFMTP).
Thank you.
"Don't worry, it's not loaded." --Terry Kath
Blind people can lead rich, full lives. - in environments that don't require a dependancy on EYESIGHT. The net IS one of those environments.
I usually don't speak this strongly but from someone who is married to a blind person:
You are an idiot.
Computers and the digitization/electronic distrobution of knowledge could, if done properly, be the single greatest boon towards overcoming the obsticles the handicapped face that mankind has ever invented. With a very small amount of work almost any real information in a computer can be processed and fed out of a computer such that anyone has access to it. The net is not dependant upon eyesight unless lazy developers make it that way. At worst you design a bare-bones text only version. At best you simply add a few tags while you're in the design stage. These relativley simple accomidations open up the entire world worth of information to a segment of the population that previously had very little access to it.
The whole point of a society is to have the whole act such that the individual gains benefit. Your attitude is bad for society and bad for humanity.
jello.
aka aron.
... you can also look at Mark Pilgrim's Dive Into Accessibility, which I've found quite helpful.
My problem is way too common to really be considered a disability. I'm in my early 40s and starting to lose depth of field. I can't move closer like I used to in order to see things better. Sure, I'll probably have bifocals to help correct this before long, but that is besides the point.
Web designers that don't get this are hurting themselves and their customers, and it is just plain unprofessional. If you don't have the time or inclination to do this right, then get out of the business and leave it to those who do care.
You are right on with respect to professional ethics. The review also mentions the point that accessable websites are actually easier to code than inaccessable ones. Standards are critical no matter what the MS wannabes say. Embrace and extend hurts everyone, and anyone who says otherwise is buying into the ethics of MS marketing. The only way you can do this is to leave your professional ethics at the door. IE is not the only browser even if that is what the maketdroid down the hall says. If you have to have a lot of flashing UI interaction stuff, then you had better do your homework on what works and where.
not that I have anything against those with problems, i'm just a lazy bastard. i always think "hey maybe i should use the ALT tag for my images" then i think "no i'd rather cut out early and play sonic" - i think it's alwso why i am too lazy to use the shift key when i type, and don't bother to check for spelling or punctuation.
Ave Molech Setting
Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape 7 all have the option to set a minimum font size. IE is the only major browser that doesn't allow this.
:-)
Also, all three of the major "alternative" browsers have a zoom function that makes fonts larger regardless of the point-size set by the web designer. IE is the only major browser that will NEVER make a 8-point font bigger than 8-points without overriding the entire font structure for the page.
Considering how many newbie (or rude maybe) web designers assume that their pages will never be viewed by anyone with a resolution greater than 800x600, I'm a big fan of the Minimum Font Size option in my chosen browser. I obviously don't choose IE.
Illegitimi non carborundum
What's next? Am I going to be told to make sure that colors on my website don't effect people with a black/blue colorblind problem. If you don't like a site don't patronize them!!
I'm sorry if someone has a disability but that is their problem. The government forcing me to change a website is mine! What happened to freedom of speech? Is the government going to pass a law that will prevent me from using long words so people that flunked out of school can understand me? What ever happened to people rising to the challenge and overcoming adversity?
People w/ disabilities have to learn to copy with the rest of us.(called the norm) We shouldn't have to expend vast amounts of time to cope w/ them. (sorry but this is reality)
Ex. How many times do you really see all those handicapped(ohh.. excuse me 'challenged') places in front of the store occupied? How many people with those tags are really held by truly handicapped people? These places need to exist but we have a LOT of people running around saying they are handicapped that aren't!
How many restrooms are closed to the public now because the store owners don't want to spend thousands to make them wheelchair accessible?
Why? Here's the quick course:
On the web, the primary way that information is represented is in the form of HTML and XML documents.
Neither HTML nor XML was designed as a visual medium; rather, both are intended to represent information in a manner that is independent of presentation.
However -- and this is where the problems start -- almost all other media that designers and content creators have experience with (e.g., the ever-popular ink on paper) are visually oriented media, and so many designers and content creators approach web media with this bias.
As a result, all too many web sites are designed with the goal of looking a certain way instead of communicating the intended information clearly. This is an understandable error because with most other media (e.g., ink on paper), these two goals are one and the same. But it is still an error.
To correct the error requires nothing more than the following:
Even if your web site's audience does not include people with disabilities, there are many good reasons for making your site accessible:
There you have it. When doing the right thing is easier, why not do it?
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
A few weeks back, vennix.com had a very interesting article on what they consider accessible websites for the healthcare/medical industry. Interesting read.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Bobby yet. Developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) in cooperation with the W3C, Bobby is "a software tool designed to help expose and repair barriers to accessibility and encourage compliance with existing accessibility guidelines."
I've used it extensively over the past year. It used to be freeware when it was owned by CAST, but still... at $99USD it is a miniscule cost for any company that must comply with accessibility on it's web pages.
"Bobby"
Maybe you mean Netscape 4? Mozilla 4 is still long in the future.
A non-disabled person is simply "temporarily abled."
You get old, you become disabled - and/or - you get hurt/sick, you become disabled.
First, a bit of background on what I've learned over the past few years. I was born with a few visual defects, but I could still get around with a good set of glasses. Over the years, my vision has steadily degenerated, partly from the stiffening of the eye muscles, partly from a bad accident in my younger years. Now I can't see out of one eye, and only see a monochrome image in 20 degrees of vision, where a normal person can see about 120 degrees.
My second year in college, I became friends with someone who was completely blind. He's an excellent writer, and has publications in a few magazines (don't recall which, though). However, when his printer's error light started blinking one night, he called me on the phone and wanted me to fix it. It was out of paper, but because the printer was old, it wasn't telling the computer what the problem was*. He couldn't fix the machine because it wasn't telling him what was wrong. All he knew was that he hit print and nothing was happening.
As for some of the comments about forcing standards on people's creativity, consider many of the real-life standards from the ADA. When you go to a major store such as a shopping mall or a Wal-Mart, how often do you see several handicapped parking spaces or a small ramp on the sidewalk on the sidewalk? Those are the kinds of adaptations the ADA covers. The people who design the blueprints have standards they adhere to to make the building accessible, so they do it in the beginning. It's not like companies make them do it unwillingly, but they just do it.
In a response to someone who said that disabled people shouldn't complain because they get fat disability checks: I'd love to hear how you define "fat". I get a disability check because of my visual problems and Asperger's Syndrome. I get ~$170 a month. My rent is around $650, but is subsidized down to around $200. Given that I also have to pay for utilities, transport, food, Internet access, and other basics, how do you explain how I shouldn't have to worry? I want to work, but the last 10 jobs I interviewed for were turned down for other people. I don't want people to bend over backwards to accomodate for me. I want to live independantly.
Overall, the comments on this article are interesting to read. Some people understand that this about reasonable acomodation. Others feel this is about requiring people to crimp their writing styles for people they may never meet. It's not about that. There's a difference between making Internet portals and information archives accessible and making Sally's "This Is A Picture Of My Cat" page universally accessible. Businesses have handicapped parking spaces and ramps. Your house probably doesn't.
*Before anyone jumps on how the guy should've had a better printer, many of the people I worked with don't have the latest tech because they cannot afford the new computers. Thus, they get help from an agency that trains them in adaptive technology. Most of the computers they give people are whatever people donate to the agency or are found in second-hand sales. They get funding from the government and independant donations. Think of things like this when you complain about paying for taxes
This
I work with process automation and we occasionally get clients who are using Online PDFs - bleh. My favorite is on of our customers with Online PDFs - when the forms are submitted, they are printed out from a server - and then users manually enter the data into databases.
Accessibility is not just for the blind. A Web site builder needs to think about if someone like Stephen Hawkings or Christopher Reeves could navigate the site as well, without just "tabbing" through every link. Also Web standards does not equal accessibility either.
A good example of an accessible site is the one for the School for the Blind.
I don't think Flash should go away, but designers need to decide when is an appropriate time to use it. Games sites like NickJr.com and PBS Kids make good use of Flash and shockwave(I have kids). But band sites and company sites that are all in Flash do little but get real annoying fast and alienate those who can't use the site.
Wired just recently did a complete redesign of their site to follow Web standards and use XHTML and CSS. More info is here.
---
eeww, I'll have a crab juice.
Not to menshun being uzed to force slashdot to except posts from people with poor gramer and speling ;)
The Perkins site, IS interesting. Here is a working link :)
My sig sucks.
I like to be able to comfortably read my content, and I find that setting a minimum font size or 20 or 22pt on a 19" monitor (at 1152x864) works out well. Mozilla is, IIRC, the only browser to have this option.
:)
If you are using local stylesheets, you should always include the !important attribute as well. IE is broken if it lets remote stylesheets override the user stylesheet, but it never hurts to try another approach
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Isn't it interesting that the SNIPER is picking one of the tightest GUN CONTROL areas in the country? Could it be because if he tried it somewhere else someone might return fire?
If someone was popping people with a pistol, there might be some merit in your argument. Since he appears to be firing from long range, I assume you must live in an area where people carry rifles whilst shopping, filling up the car etc.
Isn't it interesting that the SNIPER is operating in a country with extremely lax gun control laws?
It is possible to design good sites and get passed by Bobby, E-bility.com
If you're "comatose" you can't sip mango juice.
In fact, you wouldn't be doing much else other than drooling.
Try, instead:
drowsy
slumbrous
groggy
engorged
surfeit
weighty
dew-fed
blinkered
broken
???
Don't let scansion make you choose the wrong word. "Nibbbling"'s pretty good, but I don't know about shoals . . .
msq: minder of sigs
Ok, I'm willing to admit I'm incorrect on this. Thinking about it, it's true that websites can be designed in a way that would allow text readers to interface with them.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
I don't fucking 'code HTML' dude. I write server-side web applications using ASP, ASP.Net, XML, SQL Server, etc. Let some other half-witted fucktard who thinks they're a programmer design the snazzy interface. 'Coding HTML' sucks big monster peckers, and so do you. It's worthless shitbags like you that THINK they're programmers who flooded the IT market with their own brand of ignorance and brought about the dotBOMB. Don't include real programmers in your girls only club.
How exactly does adding ALT tags to images affect the design?
Okay, I'm mulling over putting a gallery of my images online. ALT tags will increase the weight of the pages. That's bad design. I'm thinking a comment on the front page like "there's nothing but pictures here" would be more of a service to the blind. It would definitely mean lighter pages, and that's something I care about.
So why should I use ALT tags, please?
As an aside, why are you still using spacer images? Are you seeing a different demographic in your usage logs than I see in mine? I have such an insignificant number of visitors that use a browser so old that spacer images are a good idea, I don't bother. The spacing syntax in CSS is a much better solution, IMHO.
Illegitimi non carborundum
What would be interesting is if an automated tool were developed specifically to convert sites to a 508 compliant standard (for those not in the Government, Section 508 details all the rules for creating an electronically accessable web site).
One major fault of developers is feeling that it is necessary to create one site that is usable by blindreaders such as Jaws and conventional browsers. For blindreaders to function properly, the site had to be downgraded to a circa 1996 architecture. This makes the site unpleasent and potentially less usable for the vast majority of non-disabled users. Ideally, a tool should be created that automatically looks at your site, and places the content in deadly dull plain text in a separate URL. This duplicate URL tree would be maintained automatically, and users could access it by clicking on a handicapped icon at the top of the screen.
As for other portions of disability developing (there are many of them), it is just good development practice to not rely on color to denote action (colorblind people have a horible time with redlight greenlight stuff). Small changes like that are just concious actions that the developer can make to make their user community more functional.
--Dave
Is it too hard to use the use of both your hands to enter in a few extra tags so that the Internet is "accessible to all!"
As a matter of fact, yes. Have you ever heard of a carpal tunnel syndrome?
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty