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.
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
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!
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
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
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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?
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?
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)"?"
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?"
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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