Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web Accessibility?

Posted by Cliff on from the 508--ain't-it-great dept.

conJunk asks: "With Slashdot recently becoming HTML 4.01 compliant, my thoughts now drift to the subject of web accessibility. We all know that the Section 508 requirements are legally binding to those who work for or with the U.S. government, but it's still unclear whether or not U.S. companies are required to have accessible sites (unlike England, where it's very clear). How important are web accessibility and the W3C Accessibility Guidelines to you and/or your company? Where do you see this issue going in the next 10 years?"

21 comments

  1. Perhaps not too important ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How important are web accessibility and the W3C Accessibility Guidelines to you and/or your company?

    While this wasn't posted to the front page of /., my guess is that since there are ZERO comments after 15 minutes at Ask Slashdot that it is just not that important to many folks.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Perhaps not too important ... by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      What if the people who it is important to can't read it?

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    2. Re:Perhaps not too important ... by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

      Well, what do you think accessibility is for?

      The 'many folks' seem to be fine in reading and typing with what their body is capable of with current web pages...

      And you don't hear the minority number of people crying for help, so we do it actively. That's about it.

  2. Well,......hrm by pisdtal · · Score: 1

    I try to make sure my code is as cross browser happy as can be. Im not sure I am up to speed on accessibility. But I would think that if a site is available via LYNX that it would also be available to a text to speach browser, as far as other accessibilities im not sure I would know what to check for. However I am now intereseted in checking in to this because some of the people I am working with have various disabilities/handicaps.

    --
    We admit all this to insure disbelief
    1. Re:Well,......hrm by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      Here's my top 10 big things to be aware of when it comes to accessibility:
      1.) color blindness
      2.) high contrast
      3.) provide a way to skip navigation (users of screen readers benefit big time here)
      4.) provide summary attributes for tables, as well as caption tags in those tables, provided they're data tables and not layout tables
      5.) consider link tags in your head section to provide hrefs for the home, next, and previous links
      6.) use headings properly
      7.) don't force open new windows
      8.) if you use javascript for anything, don't use it as href="javascript:blah()" use href="#" onclick="blah(); return false;" instead
      9.) if you use javascript for updating content (ala AJAX) research a way to notify the user that the page has changed (I'm not sure if anyone actually has solved this problem yet)
      10.) try loading your page in lynx and reading it aloud. see how long it takes you to get tired of doing that--that's what a screen-reader user's experience is gonna be like.

    2. Re:Well,......hrm by paradox00 · · Score: 1

      As a blind user i find that most pages are quite usable by myself and a screenreader. My personal recommendation would be to download and install a copy of jaws for windows screenreader from http://www.hj.com/
      you can run jaws in 40 minute mode review the page with jaws see how it sounds then make changes accordingly. However this is not always the best way to check a page because the user of the screenreader will have the best grasp of how to work with the screenreader and the document.
      then again i'm always looking for work so... i would be up for checking sites for a little beer $$
      --Mike

    3. Re:Well,......hrm by Teresh · · Score: 0

      This is slightly off-topic, but I think that if someone is developing a Flash video for example they should consider placing the transcript online somewhere or even having captions/subtitles for those of us who are hard of hearing and deaf. No, it's not a requirement for animators do do this and it's certainly not a requirement, I just don't believe it's particularly to do the former (transcripts) and it would open up your content to a lot of people who would otherwise not be able to enjoy it.

      --
      Do you Gentoo?
    4. Re:Well,......hrm by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      if you use javascript for anything, don't use it as href="javascript:blah()" use href="#" onclick="blah(); return false;" instead

      What? That's just as bad! People with Javascript disabled will go to the top of the page instead of to the correct URL. The correct code is to use a normal link with an onclick handler. That means actually put the URL in the href attribute.

      An unconditional false return value isn't good enough either. Load up the page in Firefox. Hold down ctrl and click the link. Notice how it breaks? Now try it while holding down shift. It breaks that way too. You need to return true when the user is holding down a button and clicking a link.

      You missed the most important accessibility issue though - alt attributes. Use appropriate alt attributes for all your images. If an image is purely decorative, use alt="".

      if you use javascript for updating content (ala AJAX) research a way to notify the user that the page has changed (I'm not sure if anyone actually has solved this problem yet)

      The new DHTML work in Firefox 1.5 addresses this, but in most cases, it's more prudent to advise users with limited vision to switch off Javascript altogether.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:Well,......hrm by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      You're correct about links to actual urls. What I was thinking of (and didn't differentiate) was for specific javascript functions you were wanting to run, not actual pages you could surf to.

      I did miss the alt thing. Oops.

  3. Wewt by Kawahee · · Score: 1

    How about we change the Times New Roman and whatever default font *nix uses to like font-family: sans-serif;

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
  4. Realistically speaking... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Realistically speaking there is a ton of work the major browser players need to do in order to advance the cause of accessibility. Mozilla and IE especially are horrid when it comes to representing metadata to disabled persons.

    Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.

    The biggest problem (as of today) probably lies in the content creation tools. Yeah, I know, the best sites should be coded by hand (which I do), but the majority of websites are maintained and created by tools that don't give a rip about accessibility (in any realistic way). Dreamweaver, Frontpage, et al really need to start stepping up in terms of accessibility.

    Finally, educating those who actually do content management about the needs of the disabled is essential. Since it's a pain in the ass to make a site easily accessible by disabled persons, you need to care about the cause to put the time in to do it right.

    1. Re:Realistically speaking... by mgirouard · · Score: 1
      << there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users

      It would be nice if more than a handful of screenreaders supported the aural media type. Unfortunately, screen readers lean toward the screen media type (go figure) so support for this won't come for a while.

      Although, I do agree -- a bit more work could be done to make the reading flow a bit more.

    2. Re:Realistically speaking... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      But a screen reader isn't the same thing as an aural user agent. A screen reader is an attempt to convey visible information via sound, whereas an aural user agent reads what is available. It's kinda like the difference between closed captioning and subtitles. One just represents who said what, and the other represents that plus environmental sounds that are pertinent to the reader.

    3. Re:Realistically speaking... by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.

      Already done. Right now, only Opera and Emacspeak have even the slightest clue about aural CSS, but it's been sitting there ready to be implemented for years. JAWS etc haven't a clue about W3C specifications though.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  5. Slashdot is not w3c compliant SEE BELOW by polyp2000 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    W3C QA Markup Validation Service
    v0.7.0

    * Skip Navigation | Home
    * About...
    * News
    * Docs
    * Help & FAQ
    * Feedback
    * Link Checker

    Jump To:

    * Results

    Result: Failed validation, 56 errors
    File: upload://Form Submission
    Modified:
    Server:
    Size:
    Content-Type:
    Encoding: iso-8859-1
    Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
    This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!

    Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

    1. Error Line 21 column 40: there is no attribute "LANGUAGE". /. ! At least with the old design the font wa

    You have used the element named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not define an element of that name. This error is often caused by:
    * incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get the "" element),
    * by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "" or "" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).
    * by using upper-case tags in XHTML (in XHTML attributes and elements must be all lower-case.

    3. Error Line 543 column 27: element "WBR" undefined.

    Great design, /. ! At least with the old design the font wa

    You have used the element named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not define an element of that name. This error is often caused by:
    * incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get the "" element),
    * by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "" or "" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).
    * by using upper-case tags in XHTML (in XHTML attributes and elements must be all lower-case.

    4. Error Line 543 column 324: element "NOBR" undefined. ... default font for the benefit of /. Serif and sans-serif do

    You have used the element named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not define an element of that name. This error is often caused by:
    * incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get the "" element),
    * by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "" or "" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).
    * by using upper-case tags in XHTML (in XHTML attributes and elements must be all lower-case.

    5. Error Line 543 column 330: element "WBR" undefined. ...lt font for the benefit of /. Serif and sans-serif do not w

    You have used the element named above in your document, but the document ty

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Slashdot is not w3c compliant SEE BELOW by Kawahee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rather than spam us with this, please read the post the /. team made regarding this. They said they weren't fully W3C compliant yet, but they would be fixing it in the next couple of days. Mkay? Mkay.

      --
      I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
  6. Not at all by wom · · Score: 1

    I routinely ignore rare browsers, non-english speakers etc. How different is it to ignore rare browser-human
    combinations. The market is too small and too specialized. I'm in business, what is the return on investment?

    I know, flamebait, but fairly honest.

    --
    Trouble, a mistake or fun, your choice
    1. Re:Not at all by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      I routinely ignore rare browsers, non-english speakers etc.

      I'm in business, what is the return on investment?

      Well, depending on your location, not getting sued is a big return on investment. SOCOG got fined A$20,000 for making an inaccessible website.

      You have to consider cost, too. How much would it cost to specify that you require an accessible website when you are commissioning it? How much would it cost to retrofit an inaccessible website in a hurry after somebody threatens a lawsuit? The latter tends to be the more expensive of the two.

      There's the matter of clientele, too. So you "routinely ignore rare browsers"? Who do you think is likely to have more disposable income - the person using Internet Explorer on a desktop computer, or the person using a browser you haven't heard of on a palmtop?

      You are making the assumption that the number and size of sales for a particular market segment correlates with the number of people in that market segment. In reality, some niches will have disproportionately high sales.

      The other problem is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you make a website that is not accessible to the blind, for example, don't be surprised if you are "vindicated" by finding out that you don't have any blind users. That doesn't mean the blind users aren't out there, it means they've gone to a competitor instead, because they can't use your site. Perhaps if you didn't "routinely ignore rare browsers", you'd see a lot more of them.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:Not at all by mikek3332002 · · Score: 0

      Its not that difficult to make a website easy to read.

      Step 1: Allow text to be resized
      Step 2: Use an easy to read colour scheme
      Step 3: Don't use stuff like flash instead use XHTML or HTML is you want people to read it
      ...

  7. My take by SocialEngineer · · Score: 1

    As a professional web developer, my focus is well designed, standards compliant, highly accessable websites. I'm still working pretty hard on developing sites good for those using TTS readers (ex: putting common text content at the bottom of the code), but other than that, I stick with HTML 4.01 Strict (minus one of my sites, which uses Textpattern.. I'm switching to a different CMS over Xmas) with CSS.

    --
    "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
  8. Automation by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    If your using XHTML then it's fairly easy to automate some of the basic accessability requirements like verifying all that anchors have description and that links are more than just one word. It's also fairly easy to put abbreviations and acronyms in with XSL, and you can automatically generate RSS feeds based on content.

    You can also do a lot with CSS too, like moving the location of menus to the a menu bar for 'normal' users and to the top for users that have screen readers and the like.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.