Slashdot Mirror
Ask an Expert About Web Site Accessibility
Joe Clark is an expert on handicapped accesibility for movies, TV, the WWW, and other media. The launch party for his new book, Building Accessible Websites , is Dec. 3, which is also the International Day of Disabled Persons, so this a perfect time to ask questions about how to make a Web site -- or a TV show or movie -- accessible. As usual, we'll send 10 of the highest-moderated questions to Joe, and run his answers verbatim when we get them back.
We get to slashdot the most "accessible" site on the net into an oblivion of inaccessibility.
Well on the otherhand, we'll test how accessible it is all right
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
What makes you qualified to write a book on website accessibility?
Your website sure is boring... errr, um, I mean accesible. Good job.
Macromedia Flash has integrated many accessibility features in an effort to promote development of content for special needs.
However, can we realistically try to turn any mutlimedia feature into its accessible equivalent? Is it even feasible other than providing a text-only equivalent?
The ENIAC Demo Competition
A family friend works with mentally handicapped children and teenagers, and was recently bemoaning the lack of computer equipment and software for her students. Is there any such hardware and/or software available that she doesn't know about? Are we even far enough along in our understanding of mental retardation to adequately solve this problem?
"I think you guys with quotes in your signatures should go have an original thought." -- Dan Miller
Dive In To Accessibility
WAI
Colour blind checker
ISU
I think mac users are attracted to the 'BOING' sound of a reboot.
love is just extroverted narcissism
What, in your opinion, is the most common complaint concerning accessibility and web sites? In other words, if in the interests of accessibility you could encourage site owners to change only one thing about how they operate, what would it be?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
How would you create a web site that is both? Perhaps make two versions of the site?
How does Slashdot stack up? What about blog-type sites in general? What can be done on these types of sites to make them more accessible?
"... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
nice example right here
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Are you specifically catering websites for the blind? Or does this type of site design help the deaf or physically disabled?
WARNING! The above is a link to goats.ecx. Silly troll.
How should an Airline make a website accessable for the handicap? For that matter any "sales" site.
Should a "hidden" fields point to a phone number to blind, so they have same access to "cheap" fares.
How would you handle the following criticism? For the average web site, there are more users of version 4 browsers than there are disabled users needing the latest accessible code. A table-based site can be accessible, while still accommodating the larger abled audience. Now is not the time to pursue full compliance with W3C specs.
I'm considering a starting up a web development firm with a focus on accessibility. I have good relations with the principles of an accesibility testing firm and believe the businesses can compliment each other well. I'm a part owner of a web development firm at the moment that isn't interested in pursuing this market, but I believe there is a significant market.
Can you elaborate on the market for web development firms that focus on accesibility? Aside from the normal perils of launching a new business (which I'm fairly acquainted) can you expound on the market need for firms that endeavor to deliver accessible content.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
you sicken me little troll.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Does it bother you that all of these people are whining about a level playing field and fairness?
Who said life was fair?
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
I see that chapter 6 addresses the image problem which you state is "... a core concern in accessibility." My question is, what is your solution to data-intensive sites that display their information using graphs? For sites that have constantly changing data (stock charts for example), what solutions/tools are there to make their graphics accessible?
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
The Opera Browser is very good for acessabillity. you can disable images with a simple press of the g key, you can zoom up to 1000%, and in opera 7 beta you can have text mode browsing. Not forgetting the useful mouse gestures.
Increasingly, people are using non-computer devices (cell phones, PDA's) to browse web sites. What alternative devices are disabled people using, and how are they using them in ways web developers might not have considered (e.g. voice browser in cell phone)?
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
What must be taken into consideration when developing a good pr0n site in order to make it more accessible to the disabled?
I'm thinking of the blind particularly, given porn's highly graphic nature.
There are a lot of sites out there that look great in the latest Microsoft-issued browser, but decompose badly in alternative browsers such as Opera, and are completely unusable in a text-based browser such as Lynx. Sadly, the formatting that breaks down so badly is often completely unrelated to the content.
Can you give some examples of sites that have excellent content, but are rendered useless for people with disablities by presentation-level bells and whistles?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Could you list the names and sources a few of the most common tool with which handicapped users would be browsing?
Also, is there anything special that webmasters should keep in mind while testing out the accessibility of their sites?
Do you have any advice for making sites less accessible? Like a retard-proof 'Post' button?
As all user interfaces are based upon the associative long term memory of the user don't you feel that most of this accessibilty stuff is defined by the interfaces already in existance as opposed to any new fangled fraff so called accessibility experts conjure up?
Bad link. Re-direct right into goatsecx. Please mod down.
What do you think of slashdot's poor implementation of conform code ? Apparently, the w3c validator is not even allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
Check your web site for accessibility using Bobby. I've found Bobby to be an invaluable tool when trying to design accessible web sites.
$SIG{__DIE__};
When even disabled themed sites such as The Terry Fox Foundation have flash animation and other non-accessable features, I have to wonder if we'll ever win the battle. As you can see when you read stories on sites like slashdot when stories about accessability come up, there are a large number of people who aren't just ambivilant about accessability, they are actively hostile. Will we ever get to a state when accessability is as natural as IE compatability?
I am a partially sighted person, and I have to admit that I do frequently have difficulty with accessability issues, particularly with large corporate web sites which all seem to be full-flow multimedia blitzes which require 1600x1200 resolution or higher, and usually override the default browser fonts to make them smaller.
However, there are a number of browsers, such as Mozilla (Just one example, I'm sure there are others!) which allow the user to 'zoom' the text on a page, to override colour settings etc.
Though it is undoubtedly important for Webmasters to pay great thought to the design of their sites in terms of colour, font size and multimedia content; how much relative importance should be placed on browser design, and the browsers ability to override the design decisions of the creator of a site?
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
...is to blind, deafen and paralyze everyone so we are all equal.
Anything less would be unfair.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
There is a pdf file to download on your site but :
The PDF isn't the accessible kind. Apart from ineffectual text equivalents for each page image, there is no way to make it thus. Further, as a Macintosh user, I cannot add alternate texts using Adobe accessibility tools; all the relevant ones run on Windows only.
Is adobe grip on the market so big that you just couldnt find an alternative ? Or was it just not worth to bother since no one would have downloaded it (which is kind of the same, when I think of it) ?
What features a cross platform alternative to pdf should have from accessibility standpoint?
What do you think of the Section 508 standard? A few Govt webmasters sometimes bemoan that it doesn't allow them to use the most sexy stuff. Although if you build to 508, your site will work for just about everyone.
Do you think Section 508 is a good model for private industry to use?
The AC poster made a statement that shows a potential problem:
The Opera Browser is very good for acessabillity [...] Not forgetting the useful mouse gestures.
I would suggest that the "mouse gestures" are the antithesis of "accessible". They require a level of fine motor control that might not be possible for someone with decreased motor skills. Imagine someone using a pointing device keyed to eye movement -- if Opera's gestures were turned on, a quick look to the side could generate an unwanted "Back" action.
Mouse Gestures, then, are an "enhancement" that may actually decrease usability for the disabled. What other "enhancements" that are in the works or becoming part of the standard actually derail disabled access to web browsing and other applications?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
No disrespect toward Joe Clark, but where are the responses for that William Shatner Ask Slashdot? I hope this isn't going to be another 5 year mission...
With solid figures, it might be easier for those of us who are interested in providing more accessible web apps to actually convince the folks with the money to throw down for the extra cost of making sites more accessible.
This would also help prioritize usability issues. For example, is color the issue that affects the largest number of special needs users? Or is it type size or alternate text for text readers? What comes next? As much as I'd love to be able to accomodate every single special need, just as with featureset prioritization on any project, I need to know what issues to tackle first.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The cover of this guy's Web Site Accessibility book is bizzarely reminiscent of that goatsx guy. Ugh.
http://joeclark.org/book/images/bawcover25.jpg
the solution is to make every webmaster change their website content. I think the solution is to make software (IE, Mozilla, Opera) accessible or for them to create (or pay someone to) their own web browser that fits their needs. Besides, if I try to make my website accessible and I made a coding mistake, does that mean that you are going to sue me for discrimination. I don't think so, I'm coding the same way since I started writing html in 1995, why should I change.
Cyberbite Networks - Web Hosting, Dedicated Servers & Colocati
Seroiusly, though, what different hardware would be needed for those who are mentally, rather than physically, handicapped? Or software, for that matter?
Best Slashdot Co
Talking about accessibility on Slashdot, where you now need to view an image (with the helpful alt text of "random letters") to be able to sign up.
I would read the article, but I'm blinded by all that white space and black text.
Doesn't everyone know you have to use Flash and JavaScript and <blink> in order for people to read your webpage? Personally, I NEVER read anything on a website if it doesn't have a popup or two.
(Comment paid for by the X10 Promotional Committee)
Being a web designer, and generally in favor of W3C compliance and accessibility standards, I have encountered some resistance to the prospect of putting effort towards making sites accessible, probably due to the relatively low percentage of disabled users.
However, I've read a few somewhat-hypothetical cases of technology that was developed for the disabled being of possible benefit to the non-disabled; i.e., that perhaps people in general may want to use website screen-readers to enable them to access and interact with web content in situations where hands-off or eyes-off interaction is required (such as while driving a car).
Such technology is not in widespread use now, but to what degree might it become more prevalent among the general population of web users?
I also have great respect for organizations and individuals who work for the truly human cause of handicapped individuals.
But as has always been the case, adopting "causes" is fashionable. More so now than ever. It is not important to be doing anything, it's much more important to be "seen" talking about and/or "making" efforts. I am rather mystified by you efforts to, what many would say, promote your book so blatantly on Slashdot. I am more than willing to give you the benefit of doubt that you are actually motivated by a need to provide information. And herein lies the dilemma faced by many a individual/organization working in the field:
At what point do their efforts become more of a business than service? Is it a question of volition? Does the "motivation" of the individual/organization matter? Finally, what is your viewpoint on this and how do you approach this issue?
There are many sites that are dynamic enough that content is driven by the end-user through different interfaces. With these, some companies have chosen to use multimedia such as DHTML, Flash and Shockwave. As these regularly aren't too accessible to text-only browsers or the blind, would you like to see more companies stop using these navigations to assist the blind, or would you see any potential to have parallel non-multimedia sites as a cost-effective alternative to allow the blind to view these sites?
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Joe what incentives do we have for making our sites more accessible to disabled users, When you yourself can't evan make your site work properly for the netscape 4 impaired.
from your site "Netscape 4 chokes on many components of my sites; that's Netscape's fault."
Maybe I could say my site is disabled accessable just its there browsers fault for not working properly.
If it is possible to develop websites/games based only on sound (like the sound-only Quake), then can we justify the dramatic increase in development time to reach a minority that would be better served by text-only content?
(the same could be asked about any kind of alternative content that needs extra development).
The ENIAC Demo Competition
When designing a site to be accessible by someone with a specific disability, certain key features are often obvious from the definition of the disability. However, it would seem to be a greater challenge to look at accessibility for the non-disabled, where there is no obvious starting point. Different people will have different expectations in terms of content and navigation, which can make accessible design difficult without a specific user base to test designs against. For example, the concept of hyperlinking comes naturally to some, but not others - some people wouldn't even think of clicking on something unless the words "CLICK HERE" are nearby, while other people might try to click on anything that is underlined or somehow set apart. How can you balance making things obvious to less web-inclined users and keeping things unobtrusive to more advanced users?
Fuckin trolls.
do you really have to spoil things for other people? you think you're a l33t0?
Down near the bottom, in all of it's glory I read this:
"Problems viewing the site? Then your browser is too old. Over 500 items are available at my various sites, and nearly everything produced since 2000 is fully-valid, accessible HTML. Netscape 4 chokes on many components of my sites; that's Netscape's fault. More details in the Site Design section."
Real friendly my friend, real accessable too. Guess what? My sites may look like plain text when viewed in NS 4 era browsers, but at least they can be viewed. You can do this without loading alternative pages and performing browser detectin routines quite easily by placing *all* of your formatting into style sheets and then loading the CSS via @import. Old browsers do not understand @import but they still load the site. It just appears as the most basic HTML, but it works quite well.
NOTICE the SUBJECT indicates this message IS SUPPOSEDLY a reply, as seen here: "Re:that is not a link to goatse.cx" but there is NO ORIGINAL MESSAGE WITH THE SUBJECT "that is not a link to goatse.cx" !!!
IT'S A TRICK!!!!!
This is an utterly disingenuous attempt to inflame.
Frankly, Netscape 4 is an utterly broken piece of crap that didn't even respect the HTML specifications that were in place when it was released.
Joe's site is completely compliant HTML, as he explains in the paragraph following the quote you pulled out.
is it just me or does that book cover bare a little too much resembalance to goatse?
(link to image of book cover http://joeclark.org/book/images/bawcover50.jpg )
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to break your fingers so you can't visit your precious tollish site again.
There is obiviously a lot of emphasis in coaxing web developers into making their sites 508 compliant. To me, this seems like the difficult and inherently flawed approach. There is never going to be 100% compliance when you have billions of pages on the Internet. Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to invest all the time and resources involved into simply writing better screen reading software. Sure, it's probably a difficult task, but so was putting an man on the moon and sequencing the human genome. This is not un-solvable and it clearly seems like case where one piece of perfect software could fix the issue for everyone, developers and disabled alike. Also this appears to be the perfect place for open source software. So now onto the actual question. What are 1 or 2 of the major technical issues preventing such a piece of software from existing. Are there any Section 508 open source screen reader projects in development? And, if funding is the question, do you believe that this is something that the goverment should underwrite to help with Internet compliance of the laws that they passed?
This is probably going to offend a lot of people, but then I don't really care.
The proportion of blind/physically handicapped etc. people who use computers and the internet is very low. It seems like a lot of effort to make websites that they can "look" at, so is it really worth it?
My website inherently has a lot of images on it. It isn't the same without them, and I know for a fact that they aren't possible to convey to a blind person. So why should I develop for them?
I also don't support older browsers for the same reasons - if they can't display the site effectively without a lot of effort then I can't be bothered.
A similar situation has occured in London. There was a drive to make public transport more accessible to disabled people. This involved a lot of new buses having lowering decks to allow wheelchairs on. I have never, ever, seen one used by a wheelchair bound person. Some statistics show that each journey by a wheelchair costs several hundred pounds because of the extra costs involved with the design and implementation of disabled friendly facilities.
And surely the use of websites is one of the smaller problems? I can't see Windows being an effective method of working without sight. Maybe it would be better to start from scratch.
I've been to several Section 508 presentations and have seen screen readers demoed, so I know how annoying table layouts can be to sight-impaired folks trying to get the sense of the content of the page.
I also know that many designers are turning more and more to CSS for layout these days.
How do various accessibility technologies handle CSS? Is it a "good thing (tm)"?"
I recently completed a flash intro for a site that required almost 30 hours of work. 2 days after the intro went up the webmaster was forced to take it down becuase of the institutions new accesibility stnadards. There rule was "no flash" .. while I still got paid for the site it is annoying not to see my work online.. so my question is this.. is there anything i can do to my site or say to persaude them that my flash intro is easily accesible by handicapped people?
do you thing DHTML and unnecessary level of navigation or it speed ups the were user want to go??? Further more do you think DHTML+JavaScript should be used on the site???
Who controls the information, controls the world...
Will you pay me to redesign your site so it is truly accessable to all? You mention in your site design section that you are still using tables because you are not fully comfortable with CSS and you also seem to have trouble with NS 4.x browsers. I have trouble with neither...I will do the design for free if you want, and I can make it look just like your current site with nothing but xHTML and CSS. Posting anon because this sounds like a flame, but I am actually serious and mean no offense. Just reply to this if you are interested and I will do the layout portion of your site for free, but no copy / text cruft.
Do you believe, in whole or in part, that the Americans with Disabilities Act should apply to the internet (or that part of the internet (if any!) that belongs under US jurisdiction)? If so, why? If in part, what part? If not, do you see avenues other than legal ones as the best way to pursue alternative access to the internet, and what would those avenues be?
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
[nt]
How do you feel about the Web Accessibility Initiative ?. Do you support it, are you a part of it ?. Do you think that accessibility-aware standards are the way to go (even though some software companies try to stick their own closed protocols instead of open standards)?
What's your opinion about the Section 508 laws in that they almost ignore the existence of the work developed by the W3C's WAI group?
Why have the USA created a different set of rules? We all have learned that having several standards is always worst than a single one. Developers don't want to worry about which standard to implement
Why haven't they done the same as other countries that simply adapted WAI standards?
From W3C's comment on Section 508:
Can you demonstrate a significant sales increase for a major site achieved by making it more "accessable"?
That is, do we know how many blind Web users there are in the world?
....n? And just what will you tell the n - 1 user?
And how many would it take to make you do your web apps so that a special needs person could use them? Is 10 sufficient, 100?, 1000?, 10000?
This is not featureset prioritization, it's education on your part.
Can you give us examples of good, easy to use, lots of information websites as well as bad, clunky, slow ones?
:)
My first HTML experiences were to see what others did, and use that on my page (with modifications to the data a bit etc..). I don't see why this should be any different. Let the builders build off of sites which are proven to be good.
I'm looking at this from a corportate angle, not so much a "Bob's Homepage" pagetype.
Oh, please don't use crazy terms like XML, Java, DHTML etc, just point me to the sites!!
What sites do you like and why?
Corporations often find themselves dealing with the issue of how to make inherently accessibility-unfriendly content accessible. For example, information about visual user interfaces (which would likely contain screen shots of proposed interfaces) is difficult to convey to vision-impaired users; it may not even be relevant to them. How would you advise approaching this issue?
JS - IBM Metaverse devteam
The opinions expressed here are mine & not necessarily representative of IBM
How do you make silent film accessible to the blind?
How do you make video games accessible to the blind?
How do you get someone with no legs to play Dance Dance Revolution?
How do you get someone with no hands/arms to play ANY video game?
If you have a web page with lots of fancy flash stuff like say http://www.homestarrunner.com I don't see how you can give everyone regardless of their disability the same experience from the site as other people. Do you think you have an idea how?
Aural Cascading Style Sheets (ACSS), part of the new CSS 2 working draft, promises incredibly simple integration of speech output in web pages. Web developers will easily be able to have their web pages speak to the visually impaired in multiple voices, volumes, and even position the voice! Why then, are there no implementations of this for any commercial browser, and why aren't developers embracing this powerful technology?
The ONLY implementation of any sort is Emacspeak!
It has been argued that accessibility improvements in all areas, but specifically software (and presumably web sites), can benefit everybody even people who are not handicapped (yet :-) ). But to me, advantages in this area seem to be entirely theoretical since accessibility applications are targetted towards handicapped people - for example, I don't need or want a screen reader. Do you forsee a technology improvement that will mean people designing software for accessibility will make it easier for me to use my computer?
This question is mostly directed at making web sites accessible to the blind.
Most people who design pages think visually when creating their sites. A good web designer will place text and images in a way that looks visually appealing and brings attention to important information on the page. Even those who make pages with little or no images are still likely to think visually.
For someone who is visually impaired, however, much of this appeal will be gone, even if the important content of the page is still accessible.
Any ideas on how to make a page that is more appealing aesthetically to the visually impaired?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Is it just me or do you also think that Joe's book cover look like goat.cx?
How to Download YouTube Videos
I got enough problems building for IE/NS/Opera/Lynx and all the other crap out there. Now I have to build for 50,000 sundry disabilities? Forget it.
Put a link to goatse on your main page; poll the browser 5 seconds later, if the user is still there, you done got your answer, and you can move'em on to the handicapable content.
track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!
What is the relationship between usability and accessibility? Does improving accessibility improve usability, and if so, why? Is one more important than the other? Can you name some web sites that are easy to use, and accessible so we have some examples to follow?
How to Download YouTube Videos
Dear Mr. Clark,
I am a web developer for the Program on Employment and Disability at the School of Industrial Labor Relations at Cornell University. Web accessibility is a serious issue for us, and we try to keep abreast of innovative approaches to design so we can find that elusive place where universal accessibility meets intelligent and aesthetically pleasing layout. We recently spoke with Cynthia Waddell (one of 8 authors of Constructing Accessible Web Sites, also out fairly recently) on this subject, but I found her unwilling to commit to anything other than 'suggestions' rather than real technical solutions.
There are two sticky issues that I have encountered. The first is the notion of universal access. Mrs. Waddell indicated that, working with the W3C, she was coming up with a list of web sites that met Priorities I-III of the W3C WAI and were still aesthetically impressive (she did not have a list ready). As you are no doubt aware, many sites that tout universal access are themselves victims of poor design -- the problem of 'yes it's W3C/WAI compliant across the board, but it's ugly as sin.' Do you believe that a site can have a single interface that is truly 'universally' accessible, or do you believe that sites should have alternate interfaces? (the web equivalent of 'do we have a ramp and stairs or just a ramp?')
Along those lines, it is apparent to me that the accessibility guidelines are designed to be useful in a manner proportional to the lobbying power of disability rights groups. That is to say, blind people and deaf people, although they comprise extraordinarily small percentages of people with disabilities, have an enormous amount of political clout when compared to people with cognitive disorders -- ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia, Autism, Schizo-affective disorder, Schizophrenia, et cetera. Because these disability groups lack the considerable power of a strong advocacy group, do you feel that they have been left by the wayside when it comes to Section 508 or WAI? (and do you personally believe that total-WAI compliance is necessary, or just Section 508?)
My apologies for several questions at once, but we take this issue very seriously here and your answers will go a long way to helping us do what we do to better suit the community that ILR serves.
Thanks so much,
Samuel W. Knowlton
Why doesn't anyone ever listen to you guys?
Seriously, I've seen TONS of studies, articles, and books on this. But I don't see many sites - even large ones - following through.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Mouse gestures can be turned off. Preferences/Accessability/Enable Mouse Gestures. There is nothing wrong with having something optional which may or may not be benefical.
Is it better to offer a completely different website, or to offer options in the context of an existing standard (people with all capabilities) website?
The conventional approach seems to be the latter - design your website as if everyone is sighted, has full use of hands, can hear well, and then offer options - ALT text etc etc. - for those who have disabilities.
But what about an approach where different website experiences are offered? Is it in fact the case that a blind person is going to navigate a site the same way as a sighted person? Perhaps not.
Just curious.
I am minded of when WAP/WML came out, and PDAs. It fairly rapidly became clear that one cannot repurpose web applications for different screen form factors and different network conditions. So why do we think we can repurpose for accessibility?
I nominate this guy for the biggest douche-bag in the universe award.
What are some other benefits of making sites handicapped accessible? Sometimes businesses don't care if they reach what they consider a minority. But they might care if there are other benefits. For example... the site is probably better searchable if it is more accessible. Any others?
Sex - Find It
For example, if regardless of disability (deaf, blind, motion disabilities come to mind) an individual could access a common site to call for a local taxicab service, etc. However, I doubt that there's a cab company in existence that would spend the money to create and maintain a web site designed from the ground up with accessibility in mind.
So my question is this: how can we as programmers etc. make accessibility to a web site (or set of web sites) translate into increased accessibility to service resources, etc. in the real world?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Since this is something I do on a daily basis at work, allow me to go over some of the things I do to make sure a web site is accessible.
First of all, layout of a page is important. Framesets are poorly implemented in text-only browsers and screen readers. Things are getting better, but they're not perfect yet.
Standards. I really can't stress this enough. My experience has taught me that following the government's Section 508 and W3C's Accessibility standards offer the widest range of compatibility with accessibility software. Additionally, using XHTML 1.0 Transitional works better than strict or HTML 4.01. Although it seems logical to follow these rules, there are a lot of websites that still use tables for layout (hell on a screen reader) or forget image alt tags. Despite following these, I do miss a lot.
My preference for writing web pages is to use NotePad (I'm sorry, the whole office runs Windows and I am not allowed to use Linux/Unix) to write my pages. None of that FrontPage or DreamWeaver or WYSIWYG stuff for me. FrontPage seems to take joy in proprietary tags, DreamWeaver has plug-ins available for accessibility but they are lacking.
To cover for my own lapses when authoring, I turn to a number of tools. Running EVERY page through W3C's various validators is very helpful. Although all that gets me is standard's compliant page, its less work later when I use a text browser and screen reader. Along those lines, I check every page in Lynx (yippee for cygwin) and JAWS. Both are very helpful in making them all accessible.
Perhaps the greatest tool at my disposal is an actual blind person. She has been instrumental in learning how to create accessible pages. Sticking to the standards just doesn't always cut it.
All in all, it has really become second nature to write HTML that is accessible. Once one gets in the groove of things, its very easy.
In conclusion, writing accessible code depends a lot on adhering to standards, but writing logically and cleanly does a world of wonder towards making clean HTML code.
Can't spell slaughter without laughter!
Brail, anyone? Or perhaps just descriptions... cool, a text only porn site --I hereby declare my ownership of the idea of a text only porn site--
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Why do deaf people always sound so angry? And how can I design a website for retards with down syndrome?
First, Do you find that the main problem with the new crop of Usability Engineers is that they don't make concrete recommendations, they rarely quote specific examples and to the end user it feels like a bit of a sham? .NET is inaccessible, simply due to it's proliferation of javascript in it's default templates and examples that many people are following.
Second, I'm sure you'd agree that there are a lot of issues with website accessibility that could be solved with several easy checks. Do you have your own checklist that people can follow. This would be aimed at the site coder rather than a usability engineer.
Third, Do you follow the WAI's and Sec.508? Do you use Bobby or Site Valet or Lift or any of the host of other tools out there that claim to aid usability and accessibility.
Fourth, What is your pet hate in Usability and Accessibility?
Fifth, Do you think there is a happy medium that you can get to without spending huge amounts of money in redesign on any website.(Suppose that's the same as the checklist really!!!).
Sixth, Do you think that there should be an independant third party verification on a site, the third party would be either non-governmental or along the lines of Verisign, before it would be able to be accessed. A sort of SSL cert for
Accessibility.
Finally, kind of off topic, but, has anyone else found that ANYTHING that's built on
sic transit biscuitus
There are browsers for the impaired: lynx and
his firends. Programs like "links" are in my
eyes even the best choice for people with
working eyes. (I want to get to information,
not stare at things, therefore I have TV.
Best to look at comics, as is does not
use time to few the ads).
And a good made site will be accisible, as
it will work without javascript and flash and
will look pretty in lynx.
What makes site unusable is bad code: Using
javascript where it does not belong or in a
way the site does not work with it, or putting
images without alt-tags, or anything else broken.
Show me one site that has good code and does not
work in links like a charm.
[This question is directed to Joe.]
Do blind users have the ability to quickly skim through text? Is verbose writing that is full of irrelevant information as annoying to blind users as it is to sighted users, or more so?
I think that a .357 Magnum would work wonders.
Why should the architect of a website be forced to devolve what is a visionary new medium instead of the impetus being on the creators of translation software for the handicapped person's experience? In other words, if Dean Kamen's wheelchair can climb stairs...when can we stop having to put in ramps?
I realize that this may sound insensitive, but why not have innovative websites drive innovative translators rather than stifle innovation in defense of the least common denominator?
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Joe, do you know Jakob Nielsen? What's he like?
(Sorry, an overt attempt at +1 funny, if you know what I mean.)
Currently, accessibility is a prime argument in the case for following W3C standards. How long do you think before proprietary standards are developed for accessibility?
More than mere navel gazing.
My University insists on using massive amounts of JavaScript throughout their web-pages-- doing the job of links, redirects, and form-submit buttons.
What can I do to get them to change their ways?
information about visual user interfaces (which would likely contain screen shots of proposed interfaces) is difficult to convey to vision-impaired users; it may not even be relevant to them.
Not relevant? What about a blind manager with reasonably-sighted employees, who is trying to decide what IDE on which to standardize?
Insert joke about the blind leading the blind here.
But I still wonder how to make a feature film accessible to the blind (descriptive video service doesn't cut it for fast action movies), or music accessible to the deaf.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Pleeeease don't ask this question. The cited example was plain bad management and poor research by the Sydney Olympics organisers and IBM. They deserved what they got.
The rules were set out from the beginning. If they'd bothered to take notice of them, they wouldn't have been sued and it wouldn't have cost them anything.
Quite a few people assume that web sites which are unsuable with Lynx (because of frames, JavaScript, Flash, extensive use of tables, image-based navigation etc.) aren't accessible for disabled people. (They usually write complaints to site owners expressing this concern.)
What's your experience? Is Lynx compatibility necessary or sufficient to guarantee accessibility? Or are there fundamental problems for visually impaired people with hypertext documents?
How confident can web developers and publishers be of being accessibility compliant if they are not knowledgeable in the accessibility field, but do understand and develop to the basic W3C standards (HTML, XML, CSS, XSLT, SVG, etc). Is it possible to feel confident that with good design, and valid code, that that in effect addresses most of the accessibility issues?
All those fists ripping open a large dark hole..
come on.. I know I'm not the only one who
thought it.
How does using a fixed-width font for navigation and headings on your website make it more accessible for those with vision impairments?
Re: isn't short for reply.. Re: is short for regarding. Why do you think all those "While You Were Out" memos companies use have a box labelled Re: where the subject is filled in?
slashdot!=valid HTML
Often times if you design a system to take into account the needs of all potential users you end up creating a better system for every user. You get beneficial side-effects for everybody. For instance, ramps on curbs on wheel-chair users makes life easier for people making deliveries. I'm sure that web-sites designed for the partially sighted or blind end up being easier to navigate for the fully sighted.
As a professional web developer I've come to realise that 98% clients would rather not pay the extra money for a standards compliant, accessible site. They also judge the quality of sites by how flashy they look.
Do you have any suggestions for convincing the non-tech, non-impaired masses of the importance of accessiblity?
"Do you think Section 508 is a good model for private industry to use?"
Nope. I don't think it's good for public industry use either.
Fails all over the place.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Frankly, the impression I get when I hear "accessible websites" is that they will appear spartan and/or dated. (your website is a good example, ATTAIN, Inc. a non-profit accessibility provider and previous employer is another)
This is all very well for government or non-profit sites that are services for awareness and public information; all US government and most US non-profits are compelled by law to abide by some accessibility guidelines. They aren't the problem, private businesses and entities are. The impressions of "accessibility" is at odds with business sites that need to "capture" visitors with compelling visuals and/or content before they move on to the competition. The fact that typical internet user attention spans are measured in seconds and waning fast is a major drive of the design of online commerce sites.
How can the goals of business and "access for all" coexist? Do any examples of fully accessible sites that are also compelling enough to compete in today's online business environment exist?
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
This is quite funny. I can see it now.
"In accordance to the law, this site is barrier free. Compatible with IE and Flash 6."
I think I am disabled. I use Netscape and refuse to upgrade my FLASH!!!!! LOL
Seriously, before we get into those with disabilities, why don't we make sites just plain accessible first?!?
It seems as if stylesheets are being pushed as the ultimate technology for accessibility. Yet many sites that use stylesheets have unreadable text (for sighted users) when using the Internet Explorer option to ignore font sizes specified on a web page. The letters on different lines overlap.
I wonder if you have some suggestions for stylesheet features or combinations of features to avoid, to balance accessibility concerns for blind, low-vision, and sighted users.
"If they were to implement CSS usage, I think their bandwidth would easily be reduced by half..."
Bandwidth is the biggest cost. This suggestion above would mean less cost for them, less need for ads, and thus happier users.
Mr. Clark,
The problem of browser lock-in (sites that will only fully work with a specific browser type or version) still exists. How do you see such lock-in tactics affecting options for people with visual impairment? (either partial sight or complete vision loss).
More specifically; Have you found one type or version of browser to be more or less "impairment-friendly" than others?
I have a particular interest in an answer to this, as my wife is legally blind and what little vision she has left may not last the rest of her life.
Thanks much.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Actually, as someone else already pointed out, gestures can be turned off. Once more, the first time you activate a gesture, Opera asks you whether you intended to do so and if you wish to continue with them activated. A simple check and a "No", and mouse gestures will never bother you again.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
To explain that in english, when the browser is restored to a smaller page, and the left nav is say set at 20% and the right nav at 80% width, if the graphic is set at a certain size and becomes larger than the width of the left nav, then this will overlap text in the middle nav.
And another question. Accessibility means making websites accessible to all people, with different browsers and different disabilities. What do you feel about web designers designing for "look" rather than compatibility. I know a lot of designers only check that their site "looks pretty" in IE (idiots for using it!) and ignore all other browsers.
We hear a lot about accessibility, and the need for accessibility, but not a lot about WHY it's important for a site to be accessible.
I'd like to know what percentage of surfers are visually disabled, or otherwise disabled in ways that require special features and/or technology to be able to use the web easily.
I'll tell you from experience of looking at browser stats, when something falls below 5% we forget about it and focus on the big numbers of people.
That may not be nice, and that may not be altruistic, and it may not be PC, but it makes very good business sense when we have limited development dollars, time, and resources.
So, what's the percentage of people who need accessibility features in websites?
So, um...
Just how does a blind person surf for pr0n on the internet these days? From my experiments with AALib, I really wouldn't see the point...
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Was the design of your book's cover influenced by the goatse man?
I don't think you full understand the goals of W3C specs. They're actually aimed towards accessibility.
If you make your site "accessible", you're helping everyone access the content of your site, even if they're using screen readers, have poor eyesight or have a legacy browser such as Netscape 4 or even Mosaic.
Just because it's a "newfangled" CSS layout based website means it's somehow less accessible. In fact, it's the other way around. All your content is still there. If coded properly (proper semantics, and use of structure... not just endless amounts of DIVs with CSS classes), it's even a lot easier for, say, screen readers to use since they'll see the structure (Hn tags, ULs, etc...). That's a lot better than wading through a bunch of TD tags and spacers gifs that are used for layouts. In fact, you should only use table tags for tabular data.
Check out Wired.com for instance. It has a table-less layout. If you remove the CSS (Opera's user pages, or one of many CSS toggle bookmarklets for Moz) all the content remains easy to read and is accessible.
Now is the time to pursue full compliance with W3C specs.
If you could carte blanche make changes to the HTML standard (new tags, entities, or attributes to existing tags) for the purpose of making it easier to create accessable sites, what would they be?
-no broken link
Do you think the current W3C standards, when used properly, are adequate to create both an appealing and an accessible website? In other words: are the proper building blocks available? If not, what's lacking?
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
by making the content relevant, and by structuring your document in such a way that it's easily accessible. for instance, through CSS positioning, you can have your navigation and all the extra fluff appear at the top/left of the document, while in the actual HTML (which is what text browsers and screen readers interpret) it comes after the main content. this way, a user with, say, lynx gets the content first (which is what he/she is coming to the page for, after all) and the navigation later, so they don't have to wade through complex and longwinded (and repetitive, if they're on each page) navbars. another trick is to use 1px transparent gifs at the very beginning of the document that link to a relative anchor at the start of the actual content...
things like that make it a lot easier to use a site...
Text to speech works fine for blind people (mostly). Deaf people can see most web content. What the heck are deaf-blind people supposed to do?
.sig).
One of the joys of Delphi, GEnie, Compuserve, etc. is that the discussion boards worked fine with simple telnet access, and braille tty's. The various web boards that have supplanted them don't seem like they would work as well (sorry, haven't tried any yet. Those braille tty's ain't cheap:)
Yes, this is a personal question (see
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
My experience with creating 100% handicapped accessible websites is that there's some major tradeoffs, as the accessibility is currently implemented.
If you add all the various tags and such, the pages become much much larger and complicated than they would otherwise be. This makes them slower to load, more difficult to update, and, IMHO, much less likely to be creatively designed. How do you suggest this tradeoff be managed such that everyone can use the web, but the web doesn't drift back to the boredom of the web circa 1995?
-Brianfreud
Slashdot conforms to no standards.
Programming for a device you have never seen and that costs hundreds (or thousands) of dollars is rather impossible and pointless. Do you think there is any way that somehow, someway, the Average Programmer can get access to the hardware used by people? Loans? Software Emulators? Testing Centers?
Settle down, partner. Getting educated is what I'm trying to do, hence the question. While I appreciate your sentiment, there are decisionmakers in this world who won't just provide resources to make accessibility happen unless they have solid numbers staring them in the face. The reason I'd like the numbers is so I can put those same numbers in front of clients who don't want to pay attention to accessibility. It's tough to argue with facts.
As for prioritization, like it or not, it's a fact of life. I can't support Mosaic 1.0 in my web apps. I can't make video-intensive sites that are usable with 56.6 modem connections. But there are informed prioritization choices, and there are uninformed choices.
Some web apps and even regular sites don't support Mac or Linux browsers. My wife can't even log into her company's intranet to complete a required online course, because it doesn't support her Macintosh.
My guess is that a lot of the exclusion that happens on the Internet or even in the larger economy is based on ignorance of the facts. Had someone bothered to inform my wife's employer that 1 in 20 of their employees use Macs, they might have thought twice about making a Windows-only intranet.
So shouldn't the facts (disputed though they may be) about the special needs community be trumpeted loudly, in the interest of informing web developers and most importantly, their clients?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
They are easy to fuck, although having to put their nappies back on afterwards sucks.
I have read several comments about how making a site accessible is not a difficult thing to do, but making an accessible site halfway interesting looking appears to be something else. It is possible though - the company I work for full time is committed to achieveing both these aims (Nationwide). Also, I have started a site called Accessify which as well as promoting the whole accessibility thing, it is doing so to developers and very much with the view that ugliness isn't necessarily automatic - I've had a number of really nice comments about how good the site looks. Anyway, perhaps you'd care to take a look and see for yourself? Accessify - accessibility information, tips, tools and articles
Some developers feel the 'Click here' link for accessible content or an accessible version of a site is demeaning and in a way promotes a type of segregation. It is possible to provide more information in less space with graphically oriented content such as tables, charts, images etc. It also possible to provide this information in the form of text in most cases. It seems the best answer is provide content that best meets the needs of the user. If the users have different requirements; why not use two UI's. What-dya-think?
Section 508 permits JavaScript in pages. Where do you recommend the limit be with dynamic scripting? OK for rollovers that provide an interesting affect but no content change? Form validation where the script checks form fields before the form is passed to the server? Script manipulated layers?
My website recently won an award for being 'Disability Friendly'. One of the items I submitted to the judges was an audio cassette of the site being read out by screen-reader software. There are browsers specifically designed for blind people, it's not just a publicity stunt - why should a disability prevent someone accessing information?
And you don't have to put massive extra time investment in to get this kind of thing working - you just have to do things properly in the first place - write good standards compliant code and DON'T USE CRAPPY AUTHORING TOOLS and you should be fine. If you run a site which is about information, not presentation, then you might be most of the way there already...
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
There are hundreds of SW packages that stick with very cognitive and basic things, like shapes and numbers, animals, etc. At the affordable level is to just start with something you would get for Pre-K to 1st grade area, then work your way up depending on the skill. There are MS mice that have a ball as big as a softball for hands that don't move well - these work well for old folks too. There are giant keyboards. Things I don't like are touch screens (If you can't point a mouse, you won't be able to touch the right spot anyway) and voice recognition because real VR has a long way to go still, and most of these users can't speak well enough for it. I have seen many mentally handicapped truly brighten up and find new ways to communicate when put in front of a computer- and yes they will almost always need one-on-one help for a while before they are able to go it alone. There are packages like Pix Writer that let them click an image and the word will pop-up, or the other way around. Board Maker and Writing with Symbols are others but these start to cost a little more than your average kid CD. They are out there - just gotta keep looking.
I can understand why our public site and general intranet should be accesible to all. However, I have a hard time understanding why a database application used by one or two (non-impaired) data entry people must conform to 508 standards.
Do the same section 508 accessibility standards apply equally to both public sites and limited use data entry applications?
Can a properly built accessible web site be easier to use for people who do not require a handicapped accessible web site?
I'm curious to know why--when accessibility is so key to what the Open Source movement is about--so many OS web applications are not accessible? Often they don't even use valid or consistent mark-up.
It's clear to me from the reading I've done, that some really basic steps towards accessibility can be addressed with valid mark-up and thoughtful use of the attributes of the tags we already have. How would it be possible to 'educate' OS developers or make this a priority when building apps?
It often seems that items like 'accessibility' and 'usability' fall to the bottom of the task list, from version to version... I don't think that OS developers understand that there's a direct relation between usable and accessible applications and popular applications.
Of course, I'm one to talk, I'm not a developer and love the work that you guys do... but, nonetheless, I'm stunned how so many OS web applications don't even have a DOCTYPE declaration.
My three cents + one question,
smitherz.
Especially those flash intros. Move the stupid flash crap to another area on the site and let people that really WANT to be subjected to your genius deal with it. Otherwise spare us please.
Flash was designed by and caters to the people that feel the internet is a mall where the customers would LOVE to have a video camera strapped to their backs, recording everything they see, do, and buy. Sorry. But get a life and apply your skills elsewhere.
Yes I sound trollish but as a lynx user I am tired of having to wade through all of the crap on the web.
Works great on lynx. Would it increase sales? Hell if I know. If the stores wash their windows every day does that increase sales? Maybe, maybe not. But it sure improves the atmosphere of the store. It sure makes the customer feel like the employees are on the ball and that management cares about the customer.
Search for lynx on yahoo. Install it. Try to go to your favorite sites on the web. You will be shocked as to how bad things have gotten.
lynx is a browser. a text only browser. great for a touch typist. or for people that have slow web connections and that hate ads.
Slashdot has a slim version that you can enable in your preferences. I have it enabled, and I apply my various user style sheets to the page, and it looks much better than slashdot alone, and downloads faster.
6 ;m argin:0%;font-family:arial}# ccc}
r gin:0%;font-family:arial}
You can even make a style sheet that looks like slashdot:
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{color:white;background:#00666
ul,ol{border:thin solid gray}
i,em,cite,dfn,var{color:maroon;background:
b,strong{color:navy;background:#ccc}
Though, recently, the headings of each post have been changed from H4 tags to Bold tags. Why was this done? This is a bad move. Please switch it back!
I guess I can solve this with the following hack:
a[name] b{display:block;color:white;background:#006666;ma
It would not require much to add a check box for slim version with a style sheet. @import could hide the css from netscape4.
For those interested in a text-only browser to show what people see minus all the nice formatting of tables and such... check out http://lynx.browser.org/ It is one of the most popular text-only browsers out there. Takes a little while to learn how to use though :) See how slashdot looks in it for a good laugh
I'm waiting for SVG to become more popular. Not only is it easier for a search engine to index. It scales easily and doesn't eat up bandwith. Also since it's text-based I'm certain that tools for pulling information out would be easier, like a bar chart for example. Throw in DjVu and even people on dialup could enjoy the web again.
euler
the only reason you can use the web from unix is because some guy, physics guy, decided that lowest common denominator was more important than goo-gaws and doo-dads. basically, lowest-common-denominator hurts your 'innovation', but really, in and of itself, 'lowest common denominator' internet is the most wonderful innovation in the history of computers.
euler was blind. by your 'precentage' theory he would be left out of your wonderful computer network.
I have seen some really tricky, innovative CSS designs that challange those complex designs created using tables and such... for example:
2 .htm
Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/
Joe Gillespie's Box of
tricks
http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd110
See the sample sites he created in this article.
Botbomb
http://www.botbomb.com/
CSS/edge
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
And there's undoubtedly more out there...
Accessible pages don't have to be boring - it just depends on the skills of the CSS coder.