Slashdot Mirror
Cynthia Says... Create Accessible Web Sites
Kynn writes "The folks at ICDRI, in partnership with the Internet society and HiSoftware, bring us Cynthia Says, a free service to help you evaluate your Web pages for accessibility. In other words, it's roughly equivalent to what Bobby used to be, before it went commercial. It features what seems to be a cartoon version of my friend Cynthia Waddell, which is a bit creepy, but in all honesty it's a much better symbol than the old cartoon cop used with Bobby. I always thought there was an implied menace, as if the smiling chap would happily bludgeon you with his truncheon if you created an inaccessible Web site." If only.
I notice Slashdot passed most but not all of the tests
Don't forget to use ALT tags!
Ok, ok, so there's more to it than that. However, in my designs, I've begun to apply the following rule of thumb in regards to web accessibility:
The page is accessible if it can be properly viewed and navigated using a text-based browser (i.e. Lynx).
Lynx forces the page creator to use ALT tags liberally, and it reduces or eliminates the page's dependency on things like Javascript and Flash.
What else, really, has to be considered outside of the limitations of a text-based browser? I'd love to read some comments from folks with more expertise in this area.
Cynthia throws the errors, but doesn't specify exactly what went wrong. For instance, the rule (paraphrasing) "every non-text element must contain an alt or longdesc tag" gets thrown, but doesn't say where the offense is coming from. In that same rule, Cynthia says that inputs must be inside forms. Why not break up the rules and show the user where they "went wrong". (by the way, I couldn't find in the page what she was complaining about--it checked out with Bobby and the validator)
I've had the pleasure of working with HiSoftware and all I can say is that it's a steaming pile of junk.
It does NOT play very well W3C standards - so expect your nice XHTML Compliant webpage to be choke when it's run through the software. You can forget about CSS layouts "validating". You'll end up fighting the software instead of fixing your site.
If you want an accessible website that is Section 508 compliant, use the W3C's Web Content Accessability Guidelines. If you pass those, you'll pass government regs.
There is NO need for you or your company to waste money on this kind of software - and it's lame to see all these companies selling government agencies on this "this software will make your pages compliant for only $4000!" and having those agencies roll over and waste money on this software.
Oddly enough, those agencies that took the time to code to W3C standards in the first place happen to have very little trouble passing these guidelines.
Blind users or users with very limited seeing. That is also what the ALT attribute (there is no such thing as an ALT tag) is used for, to provide information about the image to the screen reader they are using. So, yes, the ALT attribute is used for things other than text browsers.
.swf file.
For example, why is Flash so bad for the web? Simple: say you have a blind user. How on earth are they supposed to navigate a Flash site when there are no ALT attributes to guide them and their screen readers can't "read" a
That's just one example I am familiar with.
-Vic
In case you have a problem with using something (at least partially) from HiSoftware (I know some Assistive Tech. Specialists who do), you might be interested in using the WAVE.
Here's a Google of some resources and info, as well.
Ultimately, the biggest problem I have, is that too many web designers utterly rely on these validators. The problem is, they can only check for a few different parts of the standard. For instance, an automated validator may only be able to verify compliance with maybe half of the W3C WAI (Web Accessibility Intiative)'s 65 checkpoints (that's in all 3 priorities). The other things have to be done manually, which is not really that bad if you understand what needs to be done and how to do it.
It's simply a matter of rearanging your design style slightly to accomodate some minor design principles. Unfortunately, most web designers think that a validation or repair tool will solve all of their problems. It won't.
I'd take advice like that with a pinch of salt, as the person dispensing it clearly demonstrates no understanding of the basic structure of an HTML document.
There is no such thing as an "alt tag". There is an alt attribute, which is a completely different thing.
That's a dangerous assumption. Take guiltless image use as an example. Works fine in lynx, but fails miserably when you use a browser that renders CSS but does not display background images.
Website accessibility is a complex topic, and there's no way you can automatically test something like this. The best you can do is provide hints on what to look for.
I'm not particularly inclined to trust Cynthia, as the report document produced uses font sizes set at 12px and 10px verdana (!), and gives horizontal scrolling at 1024x768.
One tool I have found to be of high quality is Accessibility Valet.
MARCH 12--Amazon.com boss Jeff Bezos avoided serious injuries last Thursday when a helicopter in which he was riding crashed in mountainous terrain in west Texas. According to a Federal Aviation Administration preliminary report, the Gazelle copter carrying Bezos, his executive assistant, and another passenger hit a tree during take-off and crashed, winding up partially submerged in a creek. The 39-year-old Bezos, who was in the area scouting properties for possible purchase, suffered a head laceration in the crash. After the wreck, Brewster County Sheriff's deputies took Bezos and his fellow passengers to a local hospital for treatment of minor injuries. An Amazon spokesman has declined comment on Bezos's close call. (1 page)
Bobby
If you intend to follow the guidelines or not... reading the results is often interesting in either case =)
Given that slashdot forbids validator.w3.org from validating its pages (must have something to hide), I expect this new thing to get frozen out soon enough as well.
For example, why is Flash so bad for the web? Simple: say you have a blind user. How on earth are they supposed to navigate a Flash site when there are no ALT attributes to guide them and their screen readers can't "read" a .swf file.
Spot on as far as I am concerned. At the moment there is far to much emphasis on looks rather than useability, which is more important? Useability. By far, after all your olds looked after you why shoulded we look after them, and everybody elses'!!
Nuf said and there is much more to this argument
If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
So, I checked my home page with Cynthia, and I got some complaints. They were reasonable. But then I saved the report Cynthia produced, and had her check her own code.
Here it is:
http://www.bertilow.com/div/cynthias_medicine/
And here's her verdict:
Verified File Name:
http://www.bertilow.com/div/cynthias_medicine/
Emulated Browser: Cynthia 1.0
Date and Time: 3/14/2003 8:34:15 PM
Failed Automated Verification
Emulated Browser: Cynthia 1.0
She failed! The reason is the crappy markup with loads of deprecated stuff. What were they thinking?
An example of a horribly designed web application is Campus Pipeline, used by some universities to provide student services. They do browser/Java/Javascript/cookie detection, and won't let you in unless you use the exact configuration they're expecting. Only portions of the site even use Java (for example, I wanted to set my email forwarding so I wouldn't ever have to use this interface again - no Java is actually used in this process, but you can't even log into the site if it's disabled). Although their web pages seem to render perfectly in Lynx/w3m/elinks/Mozilla/Konquerer/Opera, you can only log into the site with a user-agent of IE/Netscape.
For instance, I have a textual "home" link on every page that takes you to the site's home page. It also happens that I have made the graphical banner on my pages into a clickable link that will also take you to my home page. A blind person doesn't need to worry that there are two methods for getting to the home page -- there's one method that can be read aloud with speech-to-text software.
On the other hand, there may be other things on my site that really are accessibility issues. The problem is, I can't tell from Cynthia's output what they are.
It seems to me that the real need is for actual humans with disabilities to test web sites. Yes, I know that's expecting them to do something that they really shouldn't have to do, but I just don't think there's any alternative.
I've been contacted once by a blind person who was having trouble using my site. The problem, however, was with my PDF files, not with my HTML. Bobby and Cynthia don't check PDF. And in fact, it wasn't something that I was able to solve, due to the realities of the way I created the PDFs.
Find free books.
I think I can sum up the feelings of the whole /. community with one uncreative statement: "Who the fuck cares?"
The problem is, it's not a matter of just allowing "text-only" browsers to correctly display your page; your pages should "make sense" from a semantical point of view, thus allowing semantic interpreters (such as browsers for blind persons and so on) to easily and correctly parse them. e.g. put the "title" attribute in your anchors, consider accesskeys, validate your xhtml, etc etc.
For further things, take a look at Dive Into Accessibility, a really good book.
-- Let's go Viridian.
The correct way of embedding a Flash presentation into an HTML document is to use the <object> element. Alternative representations of the embedded object should be encoded as the contents of the <object> element. This is actually far more flexible than using an alt attribute.
Unfortunately, browser bugs interfere with this quite a bit. Additionally, most flash authors are not willing/capable of producing an alternative representation of their Flash objects, so even though the capability is there, it won't make much difference in practice.
You need to return false:
<a href="alternative.html" onclick="dostuff(); return false;">...</a>For instance, argos.co.uk will refuse to handle gecko-based browsers. Idiocy.
A good start, but not strictly true. Lynx is a full-screen text browser, so you get a page by page view of a document. A better test would either be a line-mode browser (like the original W3 browser), or a speech browser like IBM's Homepage Reader.
Apparently the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) have accessibility packs that includes a blindfold.
Don't forget to use ALT tags!
There is no such thing as an "alt tag". There is an alt attribute, which is a completely different thing.
Now THAT is just splitting hairs. You know exactly what is meant by 'alt tags', and it's much easier and quicker to say than "alt attributes". Trying to claim someone doesn't know as much as Your Lordship simply because of a semantic quibble over commonly used terminology is ridiculous.
Yes, I do. But anybody qualified to assess the accessibility of a site would not make that mistake.
Bollocks. You don't just swap words when you feel like it. If a hardware techie started calling my monitor a TV, I'd run a mile. Attributes and tags are fundamentally different things, and there's no excuse for confusing them.
it's much easier and quicker to say than "alt attributes"
Bollocks.
No, what I said was absolutely true.
You don't just swap words when you feel like it. If a hardware techie started calling my monitor a TV, I'd run a mile. Attributes and tags are fundamentally different things, and there's no excuse for confusing them.
You're just being deliberately obtuse. If your boss said "Make sure we use alt tags!", would you refuse to do anything until he corrected it to 'alt attributes'? Not if you wanted to keep your job.
I write HTML all the time, yet I still say 'alt tag' for speed and simplicity. It doesn't cause to me ever write code like <ALT="Fuck you, pedant">, and everyone understands exactly what is meant. There is never any confusion; you are just trying to look superior for remembering an inconsequential detail.
Management doesn't have to justify itself to employees, and management doesn't need to know HTML in-depth. An accessibility tool, and somebody writing articles about accessibility on the web has to do both.
Hardly. If you look at my original post, you'll see that it was in the context of other accessibility problems. Someone else already pointed out that it fails its own pages.
You think the difference between an attribute and a tag is inconsequential? Perhaps it's not a big deal if you are talking to somebody who doesn't need to know the difference, but if it comes from somebody who actually needs to know these things, it is a big deal. I seem to recall Bobby would give quite bad advice, that, if followed, would reduce a website's accessibility.
Bad advice is worse than no advice at all. Mixing up two completely distinct components of an HTML document is equivelent to broadcasting a "no clue" signal.
if your website didn't suck...
You think the difference between an attribute and a tag is inconsequential?
;P
No, I think this particular instance doesn't REQUIRE the distinction. "Remember to use ALT tags" is good advice, regardless of how it's stated.
Perhaps it's not a big deal if you are talking to somebody who doesn't need to know the difference, but if it comes from somebody who actually needs to know these things, it is a big deal.
So how many people are reading "always use ALT tags!" and generating <ALT="Why doesn't this do anything??">? Someone that ignorant of HTML is not going to be reading an accessibility website.
My point isn't that tags and attributes are interchangeable, but that the particular phrases "alt tags" and "alt attributes" are, for all intents and purposes.
P.S: I'm the original AC... dunno who that was bitching about your website, but I capitalise the first letter of my sentences...
It's getting hard to tell you cowards apart :)
My rule is simple: the more terminology a person gets wrong, the less reliable their advice. It's something I have observed over many years, and is very reliable. I'm sure others have similar rules. If anybody decides to screw around with terminology because they say it's easier to say "tag" than "attribute", fair enough, but it will have an impact on how others percieve them.
In particular, Bobby used to fail documents containing alt="" - which lead to a surge in the popularity of <img src="/images/spacer.gif" alt="Spacer"> - which does harm accessibility, and is bad advice, especially as most documents using spacer images use them by the dozen.
Going back to my original point, I see no reason to trust somebody who says "always use alt tags", because of the aforementioned rule, and I see no reason to trust Cynthia because of the problems its own report has. This is not snobbery, this is simply a good rule of thumb for judging what is useful and what is harmful.