RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Cascading Style Sheets and Accessibility



Message

womble -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 13:06:15)


quote:

there are a lot more people in wheelchairs, than there are that are blind


There are two million people in the UK who are blind according to the statistics, getting on for 4% of the population, but that's only the ones who are registered. Add in those who are partly sighted and who for whatever reason don't want to be registered blind/partially sighted, and you're talking even more.

Are we saying here that making adjustments for people who use wheelchairs is justified but making adjustments for people who are blind isn't because there might not be as many of them?



Spooky -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 13:06:37)

I would assume most litigation is driven from a complaint that is refused.
If an acceptable complaint is laid, backed up by the relevant law, then only when change is refused would there be a chance to sue.
That would be my reasonable assumption, however, we arent in a country where we run to the lawyers everytime we spill a hot coffee [;)]



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 13:20:49)

If I understand correctly, the applicable US law is ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)which is generally applied to the work place and includes the proviso that the employer must make "reasonable accomadations". A great deal of case law has developed to shape the parameters of "reasonable accomadations".
1. I admit to having no knowledge of this issue vis -a- vis the net until I joined this forum - didnt know blind people surfed and never heard of a screen reader.
2. I also admit to not yet studying it - however, I have learned from jaybee and many others that much of what is needed really isnt that hard and comes easily under "reasonable accomadations". I think I will quit this thread.
3. I freely admit that i have no clue as to how to spell accomadtions. <smile>



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 13:24:52)

quote:

Are we saying here that making adjustments for people who use wheelchairs is justified but making adjustments for people who are blind isn't because there might not be as many of them?

- When you look from the business standpoint (which is where most of the issues are), it is better to spend more money on your potential customers, than those that are less then .0001% (or however small it might be).

In some cases, it might even be better to focus on accessibility. Not many people do right now, image what would happen is Microsoft made their website compliant? They would receive so much press about it. I just don't like the idea of imposing design restrictions.

What about each and every hardcopy magazine and book that is sold. They would all need to have a vision impared version of their copy availalbe. Or are we not including that?

At what cost? At any cost? Let's say it costs $100 to make a site accessible and that adds one $10 sale per year. Not cost effective. If making websites accessible were cost efficient you would not need legislstion to impose it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for accessibility, within the bounds of the reasonable. Also, instead of forcing everyone to change their website, why not improve the tools for the disabled?

I'm no expert in accessibility, but usability has always been important for me, which helps me make my websites more accessible.

I accept the risk that my sites may not reach 100% of the people and may exclude some people, but it's not an intentional exclusion. It's an exclusion based on devoting what could be 90-percent of my time upon 1-percent of the people.

I understand accessibility to a point, but at some point enough is enough.

----
Dan, don't leave the thread, I have just the same experience as you. I never knew about all of this until someone finally shed some light on the issue. I am still trying to understand everything. Most of it does not make sense (to me), but the idea of "reasonable accomadations" does.

If we had to do everything that was said in Jaybee's link, I don't think I would have enough time, nor would my clients see their money being spent well.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 13:42:00)

Dan, you think these standards are reasonable for every website? http://www.makoa.org/web-design.htm

Btw, Microsoft says "As a leader in the software industry, Microsoft® recognizes its responsibility to develop technology that is accessible and usable to everyone, including those with disabilities. To make this vision a reality, Microsoft is committed to educating developers on how to create accessible technology." on the issue, yet doesn't do anything other than provide information.

Maybe not all of the information found at http://www.makoa.org/web-design.htm falls under "reasonable" ?



Donkey -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 15:17:10)

quote:

quote:

Are you sure you want to do that? I wouldn't chance it. You'll have a hole in your head that your brain might try and escape through!

Hope the op isn't too big a deal. How long will you be in for?



I didn't think of that. It could work the other way though and all the info might get into my head quicker!
Ask them for a quote for sticking a usb2 port in just under the hairline. Then you can accept dowloads and you'll never have to learn anything again. You can always comb your hair over it when you are going out. While you're at it why not get some card reader slots put in then you can view the holiday snaps without using a computer.[:D]



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 16:12:21)

quote:

usb2 port in just under the hairline
I hope Ian doesnt take off on that idea!



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 16:18:07)

quote:

What about each and every hardcopy magazine and book that is sold. They would all need to have a vision impared version of their copy availalbe.
now that is an interesting point - is a publisher required to create a braille version of every book and magazine? Is that a parallel to web sites? seems "reasonably so".



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 16:36:50)

I think some believe I don't care about people with a disibility, but that isn't true.

Just to give you an example, I used to visit a neighbor for about 6 years (until she died) because she couldn't do much other than lay down. She had a disibility that made her the way she is. I spent 2-3 hours every day for over 6 years reading to her, spending time with her, etc, so I don't thin that would fall under the category as someone who "doesnt care".



golfer -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 17:07:42)

Hey Womble good luck with op and keep us up to date with your recovery.

As regards DDA I was involved on a project for my company in ensuring that we understood the law and complied. I was in the banking industry.

A lot of the discussion with the government and interested bodies focused on the word reasonable which is an unusual word to find in a legal document.

At first everyone got the scaremonger impression that legal claims would pour in and we had to have hearing loops at every till point in every branch. Every office should have every leaflet in large print and in braille. I won't touch on the premises angle here.

When all the discussions were completed it was much clearer for all of us to be objective. One hearing loop in a branch. ability for people to request a copy of a leaflet or document in large print or braille. ( In fact we used a printing organisation who specialised in these one-off document requests for people with disabilities. We could also obtain cassettes tapes).

The cost of all this change was not as insurmountable as we first envisaged. Only a few people require special facilities and many just needed to talk to a member of staff.

The threats of action by certain groups did not materialise.

If you take "reasonable" steps to assist people with a disabitity that, in my opinion is sufficient.

Some of the web sites that spoke on behalf of disabiliy groups are full of large print. Rather pathetic attempts in my opinion. That is totally useless to my dyslexic son. He would far rather had pictures with coloured links and minimum writing.

So what am I prattling on about here? Well.

1) The issue is not as big as people initially think it is.

2) Some firms are trying to make a buck by scaring companies into paying large fees to them.
.
3) If a person with a disability wants your services then you must have policies and procedures already laid down for dealing with the needs of that person.

4) Webdesigners should have some basic outlines to follow to cater for people with disabilities. It will assist your clients as they are the ones who will agree the site and be liable.
Standard validation is certainly a starting point. Why not have minimum size navigation links. Minimum sized fonts. Use only certain types of fonts. Insist that a reference phone number/email address be on every site for people who need assistance to contact the site owner.

There are probably more issues but I have covered some.

The word is "reasonable". Let's not get carried away with perceived problems, difficulties or scare stories. Let us openly try to assist those people with disabilities rather than make them a burden on society which they are certainly not.

This has been a wonderful debate on an important subject and everyone should be proud that they have contributed to it.

There

That's the end of my sermon

Ian



golfer -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/9/2005 17:16:21)

quote:

usb2 port in just under the hairline


I hope Ian doesnt take off on that idea!

Dan.

I wouldn't dare write what you think I am thinking. You are totally right of course.

Ian



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 4:23:34)

1. You asked for an accessibility link and I gave you a comprehensive link so that you could find out all you ever needed to know. Nowhere does it say you have to do all of that and you wouldn't want to. Half the stuff is unlikely to be on any one site anyway.

2. You seem to keep overlooking the fact that I've stressed on 3 occasions - level 1. That is the acceptable minimum level in the UK under the DDA. In the US you validate against Section 508 which is I believe for commercial sites who do, or may do in future, business with the Federal sector.

3. Spooky is quite correct in that In the UK and obviously in NZ you will initially get a warning and be given a fixed amount of time in which to make changes. If you fail to make those changes then you face court action.

4. Perception is different for the able bodied and the person who is disabled. You use as an example of the airline case a woman who looks after a severely disabled child. Whilst I have every respect for her and what she does, she is not the disabled one and I doubt her child would be searching the web for cheap flights. I suspect that if the child in future comes up against something inaccessible she may change her view.

5. In your defense you said that you cared for a housebound lady spending many hours a day with her. That is admirable and you should be applauded for it. It's far easier to empathise with people we know personally. Far more difficult to empathise with the faceless masses known collectively as "the disabled" but they are all human beings and need as much consideration as you gave to that lady.

6. I don't claim to know how these people feel. I ask questions, do research and then attempt to make their lives as easy as possible. It does after all benefit my business even though it's not easy to see when you first look at it. There are many more disabled people around than you seem to think. There are a number on here but they don't shout about their problems. Perhaps they should to raise awareness. I'm seriously considering asking someone I met on another board to come on here and give her point of view.

She is a webmaster who has produced sites for many large companies. She is completely blind.

7. You keep saying that Microsoft doesn't bother. Where did you get that idea from? They have spent a lot of time and money plugging the accessibility tools into Windows. I have just validated a chunk of msn.com against Section 508 and apart from the odd photo that is missing an alt it complies.

8. There is a considerable amount of freedom in validation. Both Bobby and Cynthia do their best to automatically check pages but both state that there are things you need to check yourself against their guidelines. For example. An image used solely for decoration should have an empty alt tag as it's pointless describing it for screen readers. This will throw an error in Bobby and Cynthia but does not mean your page is invalid.

9. You're giving increasingly bizarre scenarios to support your case. The inability of a Chinese person to read an English web site is due to that person not bothering to learn English, it is not a disability. I can't be bothered to learn Chinese. If I go to a site in a language I don't understand I use a translator and do my best to work with the results. If a case like that came to court under the disability discrimination act it would be thrown out. Now that is a frivolous claim.

10. Strangely enough, Supermarkets tend to measure wheelchairs before they build their aisles. I had to do this a few years ago at my training centre and guess what, there is a maximum size.

11. No, magazines and books don't have to produce braille versions automatically. Some do but the point here is that they are available. If a blind person wants to read a book, there are tapes available from libraries and support associations and if the particular book is not available in that format then the publishing house would be expected to provide the information in a format that could be converted to braille. The College I was at had two braille printers. If a visually impaired student required the prospectus in Braille then we'd just send it to that printer instead of the laser.

Yes it cost the College money to buy those printers but it was a one off expenditure that gave many years of value to our students and enabled us to bring in new students who would otherwise have gone to the next town.

The US is no different http://www.loc.gov/nls/

12. Your entire argument comes down to how much it'll cost. You may be interested to know that by ignoring these people you could be losing out in a big way.

8.3 million Americans have severe visual impairment
7.9 million have moderate impairment meaning they have great difficulty seeing print
12 million people have some degree of visual impairment that cannot be corrected by glasses
1.3 million persons reported legal blindness

These are from your Govt health survey 1999. It only deals with sight problems. Start to add those with other disabilites, such as the 8 - 12% of males who are colour blind, and you have a pretty large group.




womble -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 5:20:17)


quote:

Ask them for a quote for sticking a usb2 port in just under the hairline. Then you can accept dowloads and you'll never have to learn anything again. You can always comb your hair over it when you are going out. While you're at it why not get some card reader slots put in then you can view the holiday snaps without using a computer.


Funnily enough Donkey I'd been thinking the same thing myself as it would mean I'd be able to instantly download all I ever needed to know about CSS and accessibility standards and get my site fully accessible within a couple of days of coming out of hospital.

The idea of card reader slots is even better! I can do it from my printer, or 'multi function machine' as it now calls itself (if you ask me it's getting ideas above it's station) without going through the computer, but if I had a card reader slot in my head it would make looking at my holiday pics even easier. Better still, if I could have some sort of projector put in my eyes, I could show them to everyone else at the same time. That really would be cool! [8|]



womble -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 5:22:50)


quote:

The word is "reasonable". Let's not get carried away with perceived problems, difficulties or scare stories. Let us openly try to assist those people with disabilities rather than make them a burden on society which they are certainly not.


I agree entirely. All that most disabled people ask for is some sign that service providers and businesses have at least considered their needs.



d a v e -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 5:51:36)

i found getting to grips with making my sites accessible difficult and confusing - especially trying to follow the bobby reports. part of my problem was not a lack of understanding (though i have little experience of disabled users needs) but the fact that i always seem to be one step behind in staying on top of the fast changing world of web design. css comes along (as in mainstream use;) and i'm getting to grips with that and validation and new browsers... and while i've always used alt tags i didn't knowmuch beyond that.

i found annoying that i had to go to so much effort without really understanding what i was doing (try making data tables accessible...) but i tried my best and as i got more familiar with it all it became a bit easier.

at first it's a bit like validating your site - hardly seems worth it but as you do it and come across alot of the same errors and techniques for fixing them it becomes a lot easier (relatively) so that it takes little extra time to build the accessibility into your templates and therefore all of your pages. yes to back and make a whole site accesible is a pain in the ______ but making fresh sites with accessibility - bundled with usability - isn't so hard.

I'm by no means an expert - but i've done my best and if there was a problem with a site i hope i could find a way to make it better. the main thing i'm missing is a testing panel of users - including users with a wide range of disabilities to test my supposedly 'accessible' site to see how truly accessible it is - we would probably be in for a few surprises!

there are a lot of pretty basic things you can do to make your sites more accessible: alt tags, proper separation of links (e.g. with | ,or using css lists for menus), checking layout tables for linearistation (do they make sense when read in one long line) and avoiding deprecated features (good coding practice anyway!) and the technicalities will come with practice and time. downloading/using a screen reader is a good way to try and emulate being disabled - except you know at any moment you can switch back to being unhindered! i can last for a good couple of minutes before switching back :) Opera also has some usefull accessilbity aids too - a lynx/text browser emulation, table linearisation, etc. (user mode)

as for costing more then you have to use it as a selling point - even though you're not necessarily (explicitly) charging for it - just as you might for w3c validation and cross browser functionality.

so i'm certinaly not any sort of accessibility hero i'm just a poor web designer trying to understand how to make it easier for everyone to access my sites: it was a pain in the butt first but now i'm coming to terms with it ;)



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 13:37:20)

quote:

1. You asked for an accessibility link and I gave you a comprehensive link so that you could find out all you ever needed to know. Nowhere does it say you have to do all of that and you wouldn't want to. Half the stuff is unlikely to be on any one site anyway.

- I asked for "links to accessibility standards that detail what needs to be done" so I assume that the link you rpvoded was just that. If we have to abide by accessibility standards, webmasters need to know what they are. IMO webmasters would have hours of work, and according to the link you posted, that holds true. I don't think there will ever be a set list of standards, because there will always be someone left out.

quote:

2. You seem to keep overlooking the fact that I've stressed on 3 occasions - level 1.

- What is level 1?

quote:

5. In your defense you said that you cared for a housebound lady spending many hours a day with her. That is admirable and you should be applauded for it. It's far easier to empathise with people we know personally. Far more difficult to empathise with the faceless masses known collectively as "the disabled" but they are all human beings and need as much consideration as you gave to that lady.

- I knew what I had to do with her, but how do we know what needs to be done with others?

quote:

7. You keep saying that Microsoft doesn't bother. Where did you get that idea from? They have spent a lot of time and money plugging the accessibility tools into Windows. I have just validated a chunk of msn.com against Section 508 and apart from the odd photo that is missing an alt it complies.

- So all we have to do is validate against Section 508?

quote:

9. You're giving increasingly bizarre scenarios to support your case. The inability of a Chinese person to read an English web site is due to that person not bothering to learn English, it is not a disability. I can't be bothered to learn Chinese. If I go to a site in a language I don't understand I use a translator and do my best to work with the results. If a case like that came to court under the disability discrimination act it would be thrown out

- I am sure there has to be a learning disibility that does not allow person to learn something such as the English language. It isn't that they did not bother, it is that they had a disibility that did not let them learn. So if a person who had a disibility that made it so they could not learn English, using the same logic as the airline incident would mean there would be a lawsuit.

quote:

10. Strangely enough, Supermarkets tend to measure wheelchairs before they build their aisles. I had to do this a few years ago at my training centre and guess what, there is a maximum size.

- So do places who designed their aisles for 28in width wheelchairs, have to redesign them for those in 30in?

quote:

11. No, magazines and books don't have to produce braille versions automatically. Some do but the point here is that they are available. If a blind person wants to read a book, there are tapes available from libraries and support associations and if the particular book is not available in that format then the publishing house would be expected to provide the information in a format that could be converted to braille. The College I was at had two braille printers. If a visually impaired student required the prospectus in Braille then we'd just send it to that printer instead of the laser.

- Are you saying people who are blind do not buy magazines? How come magazine companies do not need to, but web design companies do?
quote:


12. Your entire argument comes down to how much it'll cost. You may be interested to know that by ignoring these people you could be losing out in a big way.

8.3 million Americans have severe visual impairment
7.9 million have moderate impairment meaning they have great difficulty seeing print
12 million people have some degree of visual impairment that cannot be corrected by glasses
1.3 million persons reported legal blindness

- I should spend the time/money because I "might" be losing out on what makes up less than 1% of a particular customer base? People with disibilities control over $150 billion dollars, but that doesn't mean they are or are not a potential client. It just doesn't seem reasonable to spend extra money on a certain group if there are no expected turn arounds.

quote:

The word is "reasonable". Let's not get carried away with perceived problems, difficulties or scare stories. Let us openly try to assist those people with disabilities rather than make them a burden on society which they are certainly not.

- But if this is what we have to do, how do we know what it means.

------
quote:

4) Webdesigners should have some basic outlines to follow to cater for people with disabilities. It will assist your clients as they are the ones who will agree the site and be liable.

- How else can uneducated webmasters (on the issue of accessibility) know what to do if there are no clear standards?



golfer -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 15:13:20)

Mr Bob

If you spend your life looking in rules and regulations I don't think you will find all the answers you want. In many situations a judgement has to be made. I have made mine and I think it is reasonable until a disability body or court tells me it's not.

Under UK law the DDA has the word reasonable in it. As with UK employment law it has been left unspecific and leaves it to the courts to decide what is right or what is wrong. Case law will determine the law. Employment law has been ongoing for years and employers have to keep adjusting their policies to comply.

If your site has considered assisting people with disabilities and has made reasonable arrangements for them then what on earth is the problem. To me, my comments under paragraph 4) is a reasonable set of actions. Your clients will be fully aware of this legislation and will have policies and procedures laid down already. It is a matter of discussing this subject with them and agreeing a plan.

Maybe I am too simplistic in how I look and respond to this legislation but I am at present comfortable with my judgement.

Ian




caz -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 15:32:38)

Compare: I sure hope we are never required to make websites with everything listed in: http://www.makoa.org/web-design.htm . That would take so much more time than I thought it would.

_and ____________________________

Contrast: Mr. Bob's Web Design - Tirelessly looking for ways to enhance the customer base of your business.

??? Some discrepancy surely, in the context of accessibility and increasing market penetration/share, given the percentages of disabled mentioned by Jaybee, all of whom are potential customers for your customers?

I believe that it is the owners of sites, not the designer who is responsible and therefore risks legal action. Do we not have a duty to advise and warn our customers that compliance would be wise?

I confess that I am confused by your stance on this, in my opinion it makes good business sense to appeal ie be accessible to the widest possible market and show a duty of care to your clients.



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 15:38:27)

quote:

I believe that it is the owners of sites, not the designer who is responsible and therefore risks legal action. Do we not have a duty to advise and warn our customers that compliance would be wise?
the perfect summary - Im thinking in terms that I ought to determine what accomadations are fundamental and should be my SOP (standard operating procedures) and which are more advanced problematic and then, when submitting a bid, let the customer know the issues, the law and what the additional cost would be - then it does become their decision.



caz -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 15:48:55)

quote:

I believe that it is the owners of sites, not the designer who is responsible


I should have said, "responsible in law". But the fact remains that I consider that we should show a duty of care towards our clients.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 15:56:04)

quote:

Im thinking in terms that I ought to determine what accomadations are fundamental and should be my SOP (standard operating procedures) and which are more advanced problematic and then, when submitting a bid, let the customer know the issues, the law and what the additional cost would be - then it does become their decision.


Exactly.

My standard provision is to get the site to level 1 (WCAG 1)

I also discuss level 2 and 3 with the client. Level 2 is not too onerous and doesn't have a huge overhead once you have done it a few times (a bit like learning css but easier as it doesn't depend on browsers [&:])

Level 3 can be serious money depending on what the client wants on his site.

I lay out the options, explain about the UK DDA and the possible consequences to him of not complying. It is then his decision.

Make sure you have all this in writing and signed. There is always the possibility that the client, if backed into a corner, could pass the buck to the designer.

Yes, Bobby, magazines have to comply the same way as books and any other publications. They have to make their content available to someone who converts it. To make a book or a magazine readable for the blind it is either scanned in and printed in braille or spoken by volunteers and recorded. Either way it is a straightforward procedure that pretty much anyone can do.
Making your website accessible is not.

Wheelchair sizes are built into the standard building regulations and planning laws. Wheelchairs for external usage are a standard width and buildings are required to make sure that width has access.

WCAG1 is level 1, there is a link to the checklist above. I suggest you read the Section 508 checklist though as that's what you have to comply with in the US.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 17:59:49)

quote:

If you spend your life looking in rules and regulations I don't think you will find all the answers you want.

- Especially when the rules are written in the US, it would be nice if there was a for sure way to understand some of the laws here.

quote:

I sure hope we are never required to make websites with everything listed in: http://www.makoa.org/web-design.htm . That would take so much more time than I thought it would.

- I asked jaybee what we need to do, apparently I was misunderstood, and she provided a link to what we can do, but not what we need to do.

quote:

Maybe I am too simplistic in how I look and respond to this legislation but I am at present comfortable with my judgement.

- I would be very careful, better to spend days talking about it, and understanding, than to just not try to understand and get burned in the end. Not saying this will happen to you, but I brought up the discussion to learn, and hear what others thought about it.

quote:

Contrast: Mr. Bob's Web Design - Tirelessly looking for ways to enhance the customer base of your business.

- Do I need to add the words "and being smart too" to my slogan? Any competent web designer will understand that money is better spent when you focus on 99% of your audience than spending more money on just 1%. Put a little thought into this, and maybe you will understand.

For ex: If I have a listing on google that I pay $5/click for, for a certain group of people that brings in 10% of my audience, and I pay $.10 a click for a certain group that brings in 90%, which would you keep?

quote:

I confess that I am confused by your stance on this, in my opinion it makes good business sense to appeal ie be accessible to the widest possible market and show a duty of care to your clients.

- Businesses are in business to make money & provide a good service. Smaller businesses (such as myself) need to spend their money wisely. If I went to try and cover every possible user, I would be out thousands of dollars. I wouldn't tell me clients to focus on what would be only about 1% of the audience if it is going to cost a lot of money- that is just stupid.

quote:

Yes, Bobby, magazines have to comply the same way as books and any other publications. They have to make their content available to someone who converts it. To make a book or a magazine readable for the blind it is either scanned in and printed in braille or spoken by volunteers and recorded. Either way it is a straightforward procedure that pretty much anyone can do.
Making your website accessible is not.

- That makes sense that they would have to (if you use the same logic as we are now), I don't fully understand why they have to though. How would I pickup a copy (lets say the washing post) for someone who cannot see?

quote:

Wheelchair sizes are built into the standard building regulations and planning laws. Wheelchairs for external usage are a standard width and buildings are required to make sure that width has access.

- So then businesses that have widths of 28in for aisles do not have to redesign their layout to make it 30in wide for those in wheelchairs that are 30in?

quote:

WCAG1 is level 1, there is a link to the checklist above. I suggest you read the Section 508 checklist though as that's what you have to comply with in the US.

- Thank you so much!! This is exactly what I wanted to know. Now I know what is required by law.

What does part b mean?
quote:

Multimedia files have synchronized captions.


quote:

Style sheets may be used for color, indentation and other presentation effects, but the document is still understandable (even if less visually appealing) when the style sheet is turned off.

- Most XHTML/CSS websites look pretty bad when the CSS styles are turned off, this is mainly due to floats and such. Is this still considered ok to do? Disable the styles on this page and see what I mean: mrbobswebdesign[dot]com/hk/

quote:

Separate text links are provided outside of the server-side image map to access the same content that the image map hot spots access.

- I dont understand this either.... Is that just saying if there is an image map, there needs to be another link for what is inside the image map?

quote:

No elements on the page flicker at a rate of 2 to 55 cycles per second, thus reducing the risk of optically-induced seizures.

- Cyles? Do they mean frames?

quote:

A text-only version is created only when there is no other way to make the content accessible, or when it offers significant advantages over the "main" version for certain disability types.

- So a text only version is created when it offers an advantage over the non text version? How could it offer an advantage?

Also, we need to have popup windows now have a keyboard shortcut too?

Thanks so much with putting up with the other side's questions. I think the 508 is pretty reasonable, even though I do not agree with it being a requirement, I still think it is something I will try to focus on. It seems like there isn't too much more time involved to do this, maybe a few hours for a smaller website.

I hve to go for a bit, but I will be back later on to argue some more.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 19:05:34)

quote:

Especially when the rules are written in the US, it would be nice if there was a for sure way to understand some of the laws here.
There is. If you hunt around the web you'll find loads of sites already discussing these things and they usually have full translations in plain English.

quote:

I asked jaybee what we need to do, apparently I was misunderstood, and she provided a link to what we can do, but not what we need to do.

The link provided exactly what you asked for as well as other stuff you might have been interested to read. You now have a much better idea of what is involved at the top levels. If you'd gone into a few of those links you'd have found the checklists I extracted for you.

quote:

Do I need to add the words "and being smart too" to my slogan? Any competent web designer will understand that money is better spent when you focus on 99% of your audience than spending more money on just 1%. Put a little thought into this, and maybe you will understand.

From a very simplistic point of view yes, but there's more than 1% we're talking about and they have very powerful word of mouth. If you are one of the few sites that caters for blind people, where do you think they'll send their friends?

quote:

For ex: If I have a listing on google that I pay $5/click for, for a certain group of people that brings in 10% of my audience, and I pay $.10 a click for a certain group that brings in 90%, which would you keep?


The one the law says I have to keep.

quote:

Businesses are in business to make money & provide a good service. Smaller businesses (such as myself) need to spend their money wisely. If I went to try and cover every possible user, I would be out thousands of dollars. I wouldn't tell me clients to focus on what would be only about 1% of the audience if it is going to cost a lot of money- that is just stupid.


See above.

quote:

That makes sense that they would have to (if you use the same logic as we are now), I don't fully understand why they have to though. How would I pickup a copy (lets say the washing post) for someone who cannot see?


You really need to find out more about people with disabilities. They are not completely helpless. You wouldn't pick it up for them. These people are offered services. They have a regular ordering facility and the stuff is delivered to them.

quote:

So then businesses that have widths of 28in for aisles do not have to redesign their layout to make it 30in wide for those in wheelchairs that are 30in?


If that is the standard width in the US then yes but to be honest if your supermarkey only has aisles that wide then I wouldn't go, you'll be constantly trying to squeeze past trolleys.

quote:

What does part b mean? Multimedia files have synchronized captions.

If you have video running which is a vital component then you must provide an alternative or captioning. There are full explanations of all these items on the WCAG definitions page. If you use that, which is very similar to 508, each point has a number against it which is a hyperlink to a fuller description and there are techniques listed as well.

quote:

Most XHTML/CSS websites look pretty bad when the CSS styles are turned off, this is mainly due to floats and such. Is this still considered ok to do? Disable the styles on this page and see what I mean: mrbobswebdesign[dot]com/hk/

Anyone who is blind can't see how bad it looks, they're only interested in how it reads. If you use css for layout you can put things in any order you want. Positioning puts them in the right place visually but when the ss is turned off then the text stacks in the order it appears in the html. eg. you can put the html for your menu at the bottom of the page but tell the css to display it at the top. Screen readers will get the content first and the menu last.

quote:


- I dont understand this either.... Is that just saying if there is an image map, there needs to be another link for what is inside the image map?


Yes. This makes sense for other visitors too who may not grasp the idea of image maps.

quote:

Cyles? Do they mean frames?


People with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 4 to 59 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second as well as quick changes from dark to light (like strobe lights).

quote:

version is created when it offers an advantage over the non text version? How could it offer an advantage?


Blind people can't see Flash movies. You have to give them a text version. They also can't see images containing "Special Offer.... Cheap Flights" they need a text alternative.

quote:

Also, we need to have popup windows now have a keyboard shortcut too?


Avoid pop up windows. Someone who is blind has no idea it's popped up and gets confused when they try to carry on navigating the site.

I'm afraid this is my last argue as I'm out all day tomorrow with a client.



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 19:43:43)

quote:

Data tables have the column and row headers appropriately identified (using the <th> tag)
many times I havent done that - and how simple and easy to comply!!!!!



Donkey -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/10/2005 20:17:52)

quote:

quote:

Data tables have the column and row headers appropriately identified (using the <th> tag)

many times I haven't done that - and how simple and easy to comply!!!!!
I'm currently having real problems with this one. Is it permissible to use th{display:none;}?

I have some 2-column tables on pages where heading the columns would confuse people and badly detract from the visual appeal of the presented information. They would have to be headed "Item" for the left and "Data" for the right. Which in the context of the page is visual nonsense.

If I use display:none it is hidden in FF, IE etc, but it is still there in the code so will the text only browsers read this OK?



golfer -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/11/2005 4:56:08)

quote:

- I would be very careful, better to spend days talking about it, and understanding, than to just not try to understand and get burned in the end. Not saying this will happen to you, but I brought up the discussion to learn, and hear what others thought about it


I am now much older than I would really like to be. I have had to use care and judgement all through my life so I have a past record on matters like these in very senior management where you are paid to make judgements and nothing is cast in stone. Why pay someone like me when anyone can look at a piece of paper which tells you what to do. If only life was that simple.

Also my involvement in Disability legislation in the UK gives me a bit more of an insight than most people on this forum. I posted to share my knowledge and hope that members will not treat this in a negative manner but as a way of helping all sectors of society. I feel deeply about this as I believe that every human being irrespective of sex, colour, culture or disability, has the right to be treated equally.

Let's look at it another way. You seem hung up on costs and profit which I fully understand but let's take a longer term view. Any sort of technical restrictions actually restricts entry into your field of business by new competitors and some who can't be bothered accepting these changes will drop out. That will leave a smaller number of people like you who can then charge higher fees.

If however the legislation is not too onerous then there will be little change into market entry and you will have remain competitive in your pricing.

I think it will lean more to the latter so your business will be no worse off as all the other businesses in your field will have the same legislation to follow.

You posted this thread and I applaud you for doing so. I hope my posting give a balanced opinion of this area to all forum members.

Ian



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/11/2005 5:03:44)

quote:

If I use display:none it is hidden in FF, IE etc, but it is still there in the code so will the text only browsers read this OK?


Peter, as long as you can still see the text in the code then it will be read. Screen readers effectively turn off stylesheets and work with what's left.

If you want to see what appears on your page then use the Lynx checker.

I had a similar th problem but I rethought what I was going to put in the header and let it display. Mind you, I was only using it for data so it wasn't too problematical.

Right, gotta go or I'll be late.



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/11/2005 7:23:29)

Peter: I should have posted the other half :
quote:

Tables used strictly for layout purposes do NOT have header rows or columns



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/11/2005 7:24:13)

quote:

Any sort of technical restrictions actually restricts entry into your field of business by new competitors and some who can't be bothered accepting these changes will drop out. That will leave a smaller number of people like you who can then charge higher fees.

If however the legislation is not too onerous then there will be little change into market entry and you will have remain competitive in your pricing.
excellent post, Ian



caz -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/11/2005 7:34:04)

quote:

- Do I need to add the words "and being smart too" to my slogan? Any competent web designer will understand that money is better spent when you focus on 99% of your audience than spending more money on just 1%. Put a little thought into this, and maybe you will understand.


I assumed that this slogan is aimed at potential clients for your services, not "competent web designers" and as such, given the opinions that you were putting forward, could be construed as misleading. In the UK that would be grounds for action with respect to the Trades Descriptions Act. Do you have similar legislation in the US? A little thought beforehand always helps to cover your back.

quote:

I wouldn't tell me clients to focus on what would be only about 1% of the audience if it is going to cost a lot of money- that is just stupid.


Again, your assumptions about the proportion of disabled users in the population is wildly off and on this (commercial) basis alone you would be doing your clients a disservice by ignoring that market.

I repeat that it is up to us to show a duty of care to our clients by making them aware of their legal position and ensuring that their sites stay on the right side of the law. Getting a waiver in writing if they will not comply with at least Priority 1 standard of the WCAG seems to be common sense for your own protection.

In outline the minimum requirements of Priority 1 are not onerous,

1. Provide content that, when presented to the viewer, conveys the same function or purpose as auditory or visual content. For example where images are used, provide a text equivalent in the html.

2. Ensure that text and graphics are understandable when colour is switched off.

3. Use html mark up that facilitates pronunciation, or interpretation of abbreviated or foriegn text and clearly identifies changes in the natural language of a document's text and text equivalents such as captions.

4. Ensure that tables have the necessary html mark up to enable sensible reading by browsers and other user agents.

5. Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies are not supported , or turned off.

6. Allow that blinking, moving, scrolling or auto updating objects or pages can be paused or switched off.

7. Use features that enable activation of page elements via a variety of input devices.

Some clients are dazzled by the flashier side of web presentation and insist on it, so it is up to us to explain the downside of this kind of presentation to them in terms of the law and the extra cost that follows from use of it. Costs can be either in coding time to achieve compliance or,legal action and/or reduction in market size when the site is inaccessible.

If you were playing devil's advocate here Bobby, you did a convincing job of it.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1103516