Slashdot Mirror
Giving the Blind Better Web Access
crimeandpunishment writes "Decades ago, the breakthrough for the disabled was making buildings wheelchair accessible. Today, it's making their world Web-accessible. Disabled groups are hailing new legislation Congress has sent to the President. Among other things, the measure will give the blind greater Internet access through smart phones, and require devices like iPhones and Blackberrys to be hearing-aid compatible. 'It breaks down barriers for all of us,' says Mark Richert of the American Foundation for the Blind."
These sorts of well-intentioned pieces of legislation are the kind of thing that ostensibly are for our betterment and they always look great on paper. But when you're actually have to design a website and you start running into the requirements of Section 508 and other such well-meaning laws, the feel-good shine wears off fast. Inevitably they mean considerably more work in the best case scenario, and a "dumbing down" of a website in the worst case scenario (if you follow the "suggested" best-practices). You can look at the "cultural heritage" laws in Quebec as an example of where good intentions can go. It starts off with a noble goal of not excluding French-speakers from public life, and eventually leads to something like Bill 101, which all but outlawed English in the region, complete with a language gestapo.
I'm all for the blind being able to use the web. But wouldn't it be much better to approach the issue as a technological one on the viewer's end, and not a legislative one on the designer's end? I would much rather be asked to do something that TOLD to do it, under threat of law.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It also has provisions for CC or subtitles for the HOH/deaf. This has me hoping. Despite the fact that most of the players support CC, the online video/movies seem to ignore it. It strikes me as odd that every DVD has either CC or Subtitles (they have to by law), but only 18 movies in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy catetory at the itunes store have CC.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
This has nothing to do with the Web. It's about telephony in its VoIP form, broadcast content redistributed over the Internet, and mobile browsers. It doesn't affect web sites. See S.3304.
...by investing in tech and science that can make them see it with their EYES!
While it is nice to see the gov't pass laws like this, it would be even nicer to see them put up the funding for developing the tech/science further behind studies like the one I linked to. Or lifting the ban on stem cell research so that we can really get on track with giving back the senses that have been robbed from so many people, among other things.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
It's really not that hard, put a blind fold on and use a screen reader. Of all the disabilities out there, blindness is one of the easiest to simulate.
Google Analytics tells me that I got 20k visitors yesterday. Four of them used NS4. 1500 of them used IE6. There are few NS4 users that I honestly don't care how my site renders in their browser. There are enough IE6 users that I do have to care how my site renders in their browser.
How can I get Google Analytics to tell me how many of my visitors are blind and using screen-readers?
How would it put up barriers for anyone creating web content? All blind people need is for the webpage to be correctly coded according to the HTML specs and not have the important content in a fancy JavaScript that alters the DOM after the page has loaded (although web readers can usually put up with it). It would break down barriers not only for blind people but also for computers and browser makers as well as the general public, open source operating systems (no more IE-only websites) etc. etc.
As for devices, Apple's Mac OS X is compatible with most screen readers and braille keyboards, even the iPhone has some fancy accessibility built-in, Apple does a really good job at making it accessible from the get-go. Even Windows and most Linux distro's have accessibility built-in although a lot of applications could use some shining up in that area (hot keys being one of them and again, not putting main content in obscure places).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
pumping plain text to anyone identified coming to my website as impaired.
It is the safest route to follow. Any attempt by me or other others to gracefully handle it only will invite lawyers whose occupation is find those who slip up while acting on good intentions. No, take it to the minimums required and forget it. This is a far different issue than handling weaker devices. You are not up against a finite thing, that is what a device is capable of, your up against a new infinite, what the impaired user thinks they can accept. You can't win except by going for zero.
Been there, done that, you won't believe the crap with ADA my cousins have been hit with at a bakery/cafe. There are people out there whose only business is to use laws like to make money, they could care less that you finally complied, they want money.
The flip side is, perhaps we will get back to deliver information instead of delivering effects. I am so tired of websites that make me work for the content
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
One problem solved, at least two more created.
1. Size. Modern hearing aids are very small, they fit in your ear canal, rather than behind the ear. There's not much room to add a bluetooth transceiver and antenna.
2. Battery life. Bluetooth is not free in terms of power and given the above size constraint, you don't have a lot of headroom to put in more battery. You're looking at about 100mAh, 600mAh at the outside, and expected battery life of days to weeks of continuous use. Even with the brand new low energy bluetooth (which practically nothing supports yet), you're still looking at a considerable draw.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Handicapped accessible == machine readable.
Machine readability can be a bad thing when human eyeballs are the product and the information on your web site exists solely to entice humans to look at your advertisements. Watch as TV listings sites have introduced CAPTCHAs and distort the listings in ways that only a full CSS layout engine can untangle, specifically to deter machines that screen-scrape instead of paying per month for API access.
If you grok HTML and CSS then I fail to see how an accessible design costs a whole lot more than a non-accessible one.
Accessible design costs more if you incur costs per day or per view that advertisers are supposed to pay, but they don't pay if most of your visitors are scrapers. To take a bad gaming analogy: is it desirable to make a first-person shooter "accessible" to aimbots?