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

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



Message

BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:19:11)

I would think a lot of government websites would be on top of it.



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:20:20)

quote:

government websites would be on top of it.
and all the way back to bobby's original premise, government agencies do not have to factor profit into the equation



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:33:18)

Exactly. Too bad I don't get a check from tax payers for accessibility [;)]

Dan, if I didn't make a thread regarding accessibility, would you have known about what you are required to do, I know I wouldn't have known. I don't check the law every few months to see what has to be done for web designers, or what changes to the law have been made.

I just hope we don't get to the point where small web design companies have to higher a lawyer to make sure everything is in good standing.



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:36:07)

quote:

Dan, if I didn't make a thread regarding accessibility

I think this has been (and is) a great thread bobby - we are all learning from it.



dzirkelb1 -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:38:57)

Wow, good point bobby..imagine all of the companies that sell templates out there. I'm sure some of them aren't compliant by these rules....they could get a HUGE lawsuit for selling them to others...I would think. I'm no lawyer (thank god, no offense), but it seems like something bad would come out of that.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 12:51:46)

we are all learning from it.
- Hopefully Tom can put it in the newsletter this week. I think a lot of web designers should know this, but few are here to notify them! It might need to be a bit cleaned up though. [;)]

imagine all of the companies that sell templates out there.
- Not just templates, but graphics in general. The reason why this isn't that big of a deal, is most likely due to the fact they do not know of the standards.

I'm sure some of them aren't compliant by these rules....they could get a HUGE lawsuit for selling them to others
- Most are not, just like my school's website.

I don't see how a flash movie could be made accessible, nor a website that sells graphics.

Do the places that sell graphics just have to add the alt text to the image?



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 13:04:22)

quote:

I'm sure some of them aren't compliant by these rules


Very few of them are. They won't get sued. You won't get sued. It's your client that gets sued i.e. whoever owns the web site.

That's not to say that if the client gets sued he won't then sue you in return. That's why I always discuss accessibilty with them. If they won't pay the extra to have the site made accessible then I get them to sign a waiver to say they have been told about it and chosen not to proceed.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 13:36:08)

I've just managed to get hold of a trial of Window Eyes. If I ever manage to get it installed I'll post a link to the demo here so you can all get a feel for what a reader is really like.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 14:05:58)

OK, I'm currently using Window Eyes to do this via Firefox. [&:]

The link for the trial is http://www.gwmicro.com/demo/

It's big! 37Mb or you can order it on cd.

It is very simple to install but I suggest the following:

Turn down the volume on your speakers as just before it asks you to reboot your machine it starts talking to you and it scared the heck out of me.

Select custom install and take out all the selections for Office, Messenger etc.
select the option to manually start it up. The other two will bring it up automatically when you boot and it will drive you bananas.

The version will run for 30 minutes before you need to reboot to carry on.

Mouseovers read the text that it being pointed to. Loading a page without pointing starts to read the page to you.

I think you'll find it interesting. [:D]



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 14:13:03)

Ummmm also suggest you install the documentation and read it. I'm confused already and I can see what I'm doing. [&:]



dpf -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/12/2005 15:25:29)

quote:

I'm confused already and I can see what I'm doing.
is it microsoft? <he he>



pageoneresults -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 13:27:49)

quote:

Would it be a feasible compromise to create a text only version of a site to truly focus on accessiblity? would that do the trick?

You can do this without developing a text only version.

Don't let all this accessibility stuff daunt you, it is not as difficult as many make it out to be. With CSS, accessbility is a breeze. I may be a little bias here as I've been designing accessible sites now for a little over three years. Once I passed the W3C validation education, then came the CSS learning. After that, the accessibility issues were pretty much addressed. A few little tweaks here and there and viola, A, AA and AAA conformance.

The first test I usually run a site through is to view it in text mode. Opera allows me to do this with the click of a button. I can also see an outline of the document. If you are developing websites and using semantically correct markup, there is a very strong chance that you are at least up to par with A conformance.

For those of you designing with CSS-P, we just happen to be one step ahead of the game. Source Ordered Content allows us to overcome many of the accessibility issues that most traditionally designed websites are faced with.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 15:04:29)

Thank you, precisely what I was trying to say a few pages ago. If your code is valid and you use css you're a big chunk of the way there.

I will take issue, gently, with the ease of getting AAA. Unfortunately many people assume that
quote:

Passed Automated Verification
in Cynthia and
quote:

If the Priority 1,2 and 3 issues listed below do not apply to your page, then it qualifies as Bobby AAA Approved and you are entitled to use the Bobby AAA Approved icon
in Bobby means the page is AAA.

They don't bother to read the bit that says you need to manually verify the following issues.........

It also depends heavily on how many, ummmm how can I put it, "innovative new features" you have on the site. [:D]



d a v e -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 15:15:16)

quote:

manually verify the following issues
that's the tricky bit!



pageoneresults -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 15:29:22)

quote:

That's the tricky bit!

It most definitely is. And, it leaves too much room for misinterpretation. Unfortunately the manual checks are required as the tool is not capable of interpreting certain things.

Here's another resource to add to the list of Usability Testing...

Site Valet



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 18:55:34)

Yes, I've just started using site valet and it's quite an eye opener.

The other one is SiteMorse



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/13/2005 19:35:35)

Just came across this. Even the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is being hauled over the coals in the UK. [sm=lol.gif] If it wasn't for the fact that the very people who should be the shining example have screwed up in a big way, this would be really funny. I especially like the last paragraph.

It does give you a good example of the pitfalls though.

quote:

Then last Friday (8th April) Julie received the CD and did test it only to find the content was even less accessible than its online counterpart when she showed it to her RNIB colleague, web developer Gary Readfern-Gray, a completely blind screen reader user.

Talking to PSF, Gary explained that although his reader could read parts of the site – which predominantly uses Flash animation - Macromedia’s own guidelines for the software’s best use had been completely ignored by the developers. As a result – and as mentioned above - navigation required hovering a mouse over certain areas of the homepage and some games were colour coded with no alternatives given.

Where the CD was concerned, because the games were delivered as executable files and not in a browser, its content couldn’t be seen by screen readers at all.

Gary commented: “There are three levels of accessibility – one where the reader works fine, two where content is not readily accessible but could be made so and three where it absolutely cannot be accessed at all. Demgames falls into the third category, although given the games themselves are text based, they could be made more inclusive with substantial redevelopment.’

As things stand the Demgames site is both highly inaccessible and probably wide open to prosecution under the DDA, so PSF contacted the ODPM for comment.

Spin machine whirring to life, the Ministry, in collaboration with the e-Democracy Project itself issued the following statement:

“The Local e-Democracy National project takes accessibility very seriously and has sought to work with organisations and individuals with an extensive knowledge of accessibility. This is demonstrated by the direct involvement of groups such as the RNIB as partners to create a set of accessible icons/avatars for use in e-democracy on a national basis in one of the project's work packages and careful design of the new government website.

In relation to the pilot democracy games project, the current website front-end is still undergoing modification and integration with the national project website. The HTML parts do meet the W3C level-two accessibility standards, however it is recognised that the standards and analysis means do not translate readily for the content developed in Flash.

In terms of the actual Flash games it is widely accepted that Flash has accessibility issues, but is not fundamentally inaccessible. The premise behind the e-Dem games work was to engage a very specific element of the population with new media. The fact that the games are developed primarily for mobile phone or CD use has bearing here.

A number of steps were taken to address accessibility during development of the games, namely:-

1. The game play was designed so that it was not discriminatory to people with accessibility issues, e.g. avoiding many gaming conventions such as reaction time challenges etc, and ensuring that the games would be fun for people, including those with impaired abilities, to use.

2. The games are designed to offer full keyboard control for mobility impaired users. The game avatars also appear from a mix of ethnic and minority backgrounds.

3. We cater for no-Flash or low-capability-browser situations in an elegant fashion that is not critically dependent on technology such as JavaScript or VBscript. Alternative access to the container information is provided in the form of a standard HTML version of the content.

We are in the process of testing screen reader compatibility for the visually impaired – the pilot followed best practice guidelines for this but has identified some incompatibility. Updated code will be available as soon as possible and we are working on addressing this for the final release. The opportunity exists for active participation in this process by RNIB.

We want to retain the games because they have been very well received, but recognise that they must fulfill their accessibility obligations for adequate acceptance by a truly universal audience. We have already identified areas of improvement for marking improvement (sic) – such as better use of sound. The developers also continue to explore what else is possible within the remit of the technology.

Evolutionary steps are being identified at pilot stage, and any future use of gaming technology for government purposes will be able to pick up from the lessons learned during pilots such as this."

Which all sounds very impressive but nonetheless fails to address the serious points that:

1) The ‘very specific element of the population’ referred to above obviously does not include disabled people since many are completely excluded;
2) The needs of disabled users were not – could not have been – considered when the site was under development;
3) The ODPM/e-Democracy NP position, laudable though it may seem, did not prevent them sending the site live regardless of major issues around accessibility – ironic given the nature of the Project’s remit;
4) The technology implemented (in this case Flash) was appallingly deployed.

All that having been said though, Demgames does offer some valuable lessons, even if not exactly those for which it was conceived. For a shining example of how not to do things on the web or CD it is excellent
[sm=lol.gif]



d a v e -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/14/2005 0:08:30)

this one as well http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp (WAVE) but haven't used it extensively - how about you jaybee?



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/14/2005 4:13:36)

I have used wave but I tend to use it on bits of pages. I found that on some of the more complex pages I didn't have a clue what it was telling me.

The idea is that you can see exactly what order the information is presented to the readers but on a page with lots of things on it, I got lost trying to follow it.



d a v e -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/30/2005 14:12:22)

for some general info on accessibility you lot might find this useful
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (4/30/2005 16:38:45)

Thanks Dave that's great.

Interesting point about people trying to force their site to look identical in all browsers.



spitfire -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 7:36:36)

If I may butt in here, first post 'n all.[sm=whistling.gif]

Quick intro in the interests of full disclosure.
My job is to run a UK-wide charity for people who are blind or partially-sighted. I also teach computer skills (including surfing) to my clients and people who have other medical/physical conditions that limit them in some way when it comes to using a computer. I write tutorials on using the keyboard (only) to work on a computer. For the past eight years, I have developed accessible web sites for other "deliberately" not-for-profit organisations. I carry out accessibility audits on web sites. I am fully cognisant of all the standards, guidelines, recommended reading and the actual laws that exist at the moment.

I do not always follow the standards, guidelines and the ever changing expert opinions, however, because I have the extreme good fortune of being able to test what I do with the very people for whom I do it. I do not have to rely on my opinion of the level of accessibility of my web sites - yeah, that would be very independent wouldn't it? I rely on the opinions of the people who visit them and they are not backward in coming forward about telling me what they think, 'cos there is a link on all the sites asking them to do just that[;)].

None of my web sites contain any "badges" whatsoever, but all contain an accessibility policy or statement. They are all independently assessed (by more than one assessor) and have been "judged" to be "AA" at least, acknowledging here that the triple "A" badge is widely thought, by the professional accessibility types, to be *almost* impossible to attain. It is never worth putting "AAA" up in my opinion, there will always be many who disagree with you and the chances are you have missed/ignored something that could disqualify the site from even a single "A".

Having said all that, it seems to me a lot of people are spending a great deal of time=money batting this thread back and forth. One person in particular seems to be swimming uphill through treacle... and deserves praise for continuing the good fight. Another, if I read some comments correctly could actually be a "user" of accessible sites and deserves much more air-time (imho). Tailslide seems to be on the same wave-length as me and has put up some extremely valid comments throughout the forum.

To answer the question - do we need to spend the extra money?
The short answer is no. If you are a hobby web developer i.e. someone who does not charge others for their services, and your site is intended for a very limited group of visitors, don't bother, forget accessibility and go back to what makes you happy.[:D]

On the other hand, if you are going to charge for your services and you do not produce sites that are to a large extent accessible to the widest visitor audience, then you could find yourself in trouble eventually. The various disability discrimination laws around the world about the accessibility of web sites are not biting back (fully) yet. There have been some notable public successes and a few (very large compensation payments) settled out of court/secretly/privately. Now, offset your perceived extra cost, with the potential financial penalty to you. The laws seem to be coming around to holding site owners responsible. But if the site owner loses a considerable amount of money, where do you think s/he would look to recoup some of that money?

Then again, accessibility is not difficult. It is much easier than the change of technical mindset required to move from tables to css for layout. Accessibility does, however, demand a large measure of "people skills" and the ability to understand/empathise with people who are "not like you". Master accessibility and you have another (extremely bankable) skill to add to your CV.

Just my 0.2p's worth.[sm=bowdown.gif]



golfer -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 7:54:59)

Hi Spitfire and welcome.

Your post is most helpful in the debate.

It is, IMHO, great to see such an open debate on the subject where people can air their own views and read other comments. In the past it is a subject that has always been in the background and of little interest to many people.

Your contribution confirms mine and many other views on the subject. Please continue to make your points on any subject in the forum.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 15:37:52)

Great stuff Spitfire.

Glad you took the time to read a some of the old posts [:)]

quote:

If you are a hobby web developer i.e. someone who does not charge others for their services, and your site is intended for a very limited group of visitors, don't bother, forget accessibility and go back to what makes you happy

- Considering that is what a lot of the users on this forum are doing, that is quite a bit of people! Many of these people don't even know about the problem, and when you mention "valid code" they reply, "huh?".

And then you have a 2nd user group, of small web design companies, wondering what they have to do... Seems like in the UK, they have very well thought out requirements about web design, and basically say you have a set of rules to comply with. Ok, so that's the UK, what about the US where I do business? Well, the US laws are completly bull. I can't even believe the law on ADA is so unclear. I seriously hope someone reqrites that law, because people who need to comply, won't compy without knowing for certain the requirements.

quote:

But if the site owner loses a considerable amount of money, where do you think s/he would look to recoup some of that money?

- This is another reason why we need to understand every bit about accessibility. The laws, who it effects, who needs to do it, what needs to be done, etc... In the US, it seems like info on the laws is pretty hard to grasp.



caz -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 15:57:35)

quote:

I seriously hope someone reqrites that law, because people who need to comply, won't compy without knowing for certain the requirements.


You are so right Bobby, in fact you could say that the law is inaccessable to those who need to know about it. Maybe you could take this up with your local representative. I am not sure of the channels open to you in the US, but in the UK if I wanted something putting right I'd take it up with our local Member of Parliament. Do I mean your person in the House of Representatives?




jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 17:54:15)

Well so far, complete silence from the DOJ which is not a major surprise. If they're anything like our lot it might take a while before they get round to their inbox. In the meantime, I've emailed one of the US attorneys who seems to do quite a bit of work in that area.



spitfire -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 19:14:30)

quote:

Glad you took the time to read a some of the old posts

Yeah, call it attention to detail or call it obsessive compulsive disorder - it works for me!
quote:

Considering that is what a lot of the users on this forum are doing, that is quite a bit of people! Many of these people don't even know about the problem, and when you mention "valid code" they reply, "huh?".

I agree, but seldom have I seen a technical forum during the past three or four years where the good guys have to contend with so many chest-thumping neanderthals. Still you don't have very many bad guys at all in the overall scheme of things.
quote:

Seems like in the UK, they have very well thought out requirements about web design, and basically say you have a set of rules to comply with.

But that didn't happen overnight. I guess in the UK we have far fewer neanderthals left, they've been worn down gradually by the progressive/future thinkers.
quote:

the US laws are completly bull. I can't even believe the law on ADA is so unclear.

Well, you may say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. [;)]
Leave aside "The Law" for a moment and remember the old adage,"The Law is a' Ass". You have the xHTML and CSS standards. There are the WCAG Guidelines and specifications.

Accessibility really isn't difficult. If you really want to practice it and get ahead of the game where you are, join some accessibility forums. Granted they argue (almost) as much as here, but possibly more politely. Yet ask them a straight question about a particular problem you are facing, tell them what thinking and reading you've been doing to try to resolve it - that's an entirely different matter. They will do their level best to help you think it through. And they probably won't give a toss whether you are from Outer Mongolia or Timbuctoo. You're into accessibility, that's the main thing.[:D]



spitfire -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 19:25:54)

quote:

I'm currently using Window Eyes to do this via Firefox.
and
Ummmm also suggest you install the documentation and read it. I'm confused already and I can see what I'm doing.

I assume you know that Window Eyes is a MS/IE compatible product - "For Internet browsing, Internet Explorer 6 or greater (Internet Explorer 5.5 SP 2 for Windows 95 only) is strongly recommended."
Under system requirements here: http://www.gwmicro.com/products/

This seems to be the extent of their support for Mozilla/Firefox, so far.
quote:

Versions
The following links will take you directly to the latest nightly builds of Mozilla and Firefox.
WARNING:
These nightly builds are not tested like the publicly available versions. It is possible that they may not function at all like you might expect. Use them at your own risk.
Mozilla - Latest Nightly Build
Firefox - Latest Nightly Build
More information regarding the interaction of Mozilla/Firefox and Window-Eyes will be posted when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please contact support at 260-489-3671.

http://www.gwmicro.com/support/index.php?sub=mozilla

I installed the previous (full not demo) version of Window Eyes at work. It took over the graphics card. The installation process re-wrote a lot of system files. Uninstall did not work, the app cannot be removed in the normal way. WinXP System Restore got rid of it, but because, the graphic files were mucked about with, all I can get is a 256 colour screen. The UK distributors are err... flummoxed.

I hope you have better luck with V5, please tell in due course. If so, I'll see if installing the latest version clears up the mess because the computer as it stands is useless for work with any other screen-reader. Many thanks in advance.



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 19:50:41)

Well, I am only into it until a certain point. I don't plan to spend hours of work trying to learn every piece of accessibility. I want to know: how it effects me, my users, and my clients. That's it.

Jaybee, think if I send them an e-mail as well, it will speed up the process a bit? Monday I will begin those calls I said I was going to make on Friday.

quote:

Still you don't have very many bad guys at all in the overall scheme of things.

- Well, most "bad guys" don't even have a clue about accessibility, and thus cannot understand what needs to be done. When I first learned about it, I acted like a brick wall because the person trying to prove why we need it, flooded me and everyone else with information about what people can do. Pretty much sent all these links that the pinned topics on this forum. Although nobody even took the time to show the laws and such, like what jaybee and others are trying to do.

Then I come here and inquire about it, after knowing a little bit more than before, but still not enough, and people here explained that there are only a few certain things we must comply with.

IMO, I don't think we should be forced to do this stuff, although I do think it is needed for some people, because it does help, and maybe this is why it is a law. There are prolly quite a few people out their that wouldn't even bother with it, knowing it would help them, simply because it is not a law. So maybe that is another reason why.

Ill be back later to mure sure the above made sense, gotta run for now.



jaybee -> RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? (8/6/2005 20:15:35)

quote:

Uninstall did not work, the app cannot be removed in the normal way. WinXP System Restore got rid of it,


So did completely wiping the hard drive and starting again. [:D]

Actually the old machine died and I didn't reinstall.

Yes, I was using it with IE. Still lost me. It may have been because, being sighted I was still using the mouse [image]http://www.foroedonkey.com/vb/images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1103516