Accesskeys and Accessibility (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

Nicole -> Accesskeys and Accessibility (7/24/2005 19:40:28)

I've recently finished creating accesskeys for the major links on my site, knowing that they can conflict with system keys alt + f is the File menu, i used numbers. But I've just learnt that numbers arre also used already to perform certain functions, and I thought I'd post this link here which explains just what letters and numbers are already in use for anyone who has set their own accesskeys.

Nicole



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/24/2005 20:28:01)

Nicole, I moved this over to the Hints/Tips forum so more people will be able to see it. (I come here a lot for reference).



caz -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/24/2005 21:40:34)

Good find, Nicole. I went on to read the papers attached to that table and they confirm what I had already begun to suspect and that is that because there is no standardisation yet on access keys, conflicts occur so I am giving them a miss. Even the UK advice for their use ie. numbers is causing problems with authors adding their own to that list.

The future appears to be that acess keys will be replaced with access points in design. This will give the user agent the ability to allow the end user to specify their own. This is a long way down the line of course because it will be slated for xhtml2 as I understand it.

Meanwhile, OK so I can't claim high level accessibility unless I confuse some users then I can't, but I still do the best I can without confusion.



womble -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/25/2005 3:40:19)

quote:

I've recently finished creating accesskeys for the major links on my site, knowing that they can conflict with system keys alt + f is the File menu, i used numbers.


Same here. [:@] Guess I'd better check what's free and what's not. I guess no-one's told the web design textbook writers because they're all stressing you need accesskeys, even the recently written ones.

For the moment at least though it looks from that article like some of the punctuation/symbols keys aren't in use.

Onto plan B then for me...ooops! Can't have plan B, that's already taken! [;)]



erbain -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/25/2005 12:23:49)

good work



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/25/2005 13:53:14)

quote:

I've recently finished creating accesskeys for the major links on my site, knowing that they can conflict with system keys alt + f is the File menu, i used numbers.


I've been trying to explain this until I'm blue in the face. Don't use access keys.

As you've already worked out you have to use some weird and wonderful characters if you're not going to conflict with existing usage in all the different browsers.

You're saying you've decided to use numbers. If you look at that chart you'll see that numbers are used by Window Eyes and the Gekko browsers. A lot of the symbols are used by Jaws.

The whole point of Access keys is that they relate to where the user is going so you use Alt + C for Contact for example. How are your visitors supposed to know what keys you expect them to use? Have you set them up an instruction page? And are they supposed to remember that in order to get to the Contact page or button they need to hit Alt + ~?

The Web Accessibility User Group have stated that you should not use access keys. The whole thing is being looked at as Carol states above and will eventually turn up. In the meantime I've removed them from my sites.

http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19



womble -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/26/2005 14:48:45)

Well, I've just been through all my code and taken out all the access keys (those pesky little things hide everywhere - large fly-swat was required[;)]). I think I got them all though. Just out of interest though, if they conflict with system keys, I take it's the system key functions that take preference?



davids -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 11:41:06)

I have to enter the dissenting opinion on this. My company mainly develops online systems, so people are prepared to learn the keys a bit. Another point is that many users are trying to enter information and move around quickly without taking their hands off the keyboard.

Because of this, my customers have demanded the use of accesskeys. I only care about IE, and my experience with that is that if you press the alt key and release it, you get the browser menu, but if you continue to press the alt key, you get the accesskey. A subtle distinction for the occassional visitor, but fine for those willing to learn.

Because of this, I have used access keys extensively, and I don't get any user problems. You should consider whether they might address your particular situation rather than just ignoring them altogether.



Tailslide -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 11:51:18)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davids
I only care about IE,


[:o]

Not the best idea.

(*Fingers crossed*) IE 7 will go some ways towards being standard compliant. If you plan a site to work with broken IE only then you may get stuck in the future. Certainly as more people switch over to better browsers.



davids -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 15:33:07)

Well, first I should have said my customers only care about IE - for now.

Anyway, Firefox lovers, I just tested it and it perfomes just the same way. ALT, H, brings the Help menu, Alt+H works in my menu.

The difference is that when there is an access key on a link (menu item), Firefox follows the link, while with IE, you have to press Enter. Half point to Firefox.

I can't post an example here, because there is a log in.



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 16:48:51)

quote:

I only care about IE


OK, so you've tested it in Firefox. What about all the other browsers? And this is presumably with your online system that people are trained to use. What about with a bog standard web site where your visitors have disabilities, they are the ones access keys were originally aimed at. Try testing them in Window Eyes, Jaws and Supernova.

I appreciate that they may do exactly what you want and be perfect for your restricted requirements but the Usability & Accessibility (UA) Working Group are the experts from an accessibility point of view and if they say don't use them then you can guarantee they have a very good reason for doing so.

They are working very closely with Cynthia Waddell who is now a member. Before anyone says who? If you validate your site to WCAG A ratings via Firefox tools, then you use Cynthia's validator to do it.

http://www.bwdma.co.uk/453



davids -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:05:27)

I bow to the greater knowledge of the Usability & Accessibility (UA) Working Group, although I fail to see why we should focus on people with internet-related disabilites that use barely heard-of browsers when there are two perfectly capable browsers out there for free.

I was not trying to get into the browser wars. What I can say is that my customers complain about a lot of things, but they NEVER complain about their browser.

All I was saying is that access keys work for me in some situations and solve a customer problem very nicely. So quite aside from principle, maybe people should keep them in their bag of tools.



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:11:22)

So you're happy to cater for the users who are able to use IE and Firefox and completely ignore the millions who are blind or have motor disabilities and have no choice but to use other browsers such as the screen readers, Jaws, Supernova etc.

You do realise that there are now laws in most countries insisting that commercial web sites are fully accessible.



Nicole -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:12:21)

Hi David,

Getting a bit off topic here, but a lot of people don't know what IE is, or FF, or any other. They don't even know what a browser is, all they know is that it's the "Internet". They don't complain about the "Internet" because to them why would they, the "Internet" is the thing which is working fine, it's the website or the software that making the "Internet" do funny things.

Nicole



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:17:51)

No Nicole, that's not off topic, you're perfectly correct. Most of my clients when asked what browser they're using don't have a clue what I'm talking about. They usually reply they're using Windows.



davids -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:22:45)

Good grief, Superwoman, access keys solve a problem for me. Can't we leave it at that?

Nicole, you're exactly right. To most users, the browser is the Internet. The fact is that they accept it as it is and are not going to look at alternatives. I have to work in their world, not try to change it to mine.



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/27/2005 17:29:09)

quote:

I have to work in their world


But you're not. You're working in the world of the ones who use IE and now Firefox.

In this particular case it's currently fine as you have a restricted access system but be prepared for a huge change if you suddenly have to cater for someone who's blind.

I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to inform of the alternatives you, and many others, have missed and make you aware of the outcome if someone decides to sue. The last case that went to court in the UK was awarded £20,000.



Tailslide -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 3:57:51)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
The last case that went to court in the UK was awarded £20,000.


Jaybee - could you give us some more details about this - I like to have some facts and figures to hand when bullying err I mean talking to clients.



briesmith -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 5:26:36)

Yes please, Jaybee, let's have the facts - and a reference? - to this £20,000 case.

All this disability access stuff is a bit like health and safety "legislation"; technofanatics, zealots, bullies, little Hitlers, bureaucrats, the lazy etc all use it to support whatever it is they do or mainly, don't, want to (have to) do.

Most disability/health & safety strictures are, like pub statistics, made up on the spot to suit an argument. No conkers in the playground, no hanging baskets, and so on.

Let's, for once, have the facts.

On the access keys issue; if you use them then then "train" your users to first press the Ctrl or Alt key and when they do, display a table of your assignments - those that are unique to your application as well as the standard ones you've not interefered with - so that they can begin to learn them.

If you don't do this you run the risk of confusion and whenever users are confused they stay away from the area generating the anxiety altogether. Which means all the work you did building your code to use access keys is wasted...



BobbyDouglas -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 5:29:34)

Some people in certain situations do not need to look at the big picture. If everyone uses IE, and you design so that your site works only in IE, but is messy in everything else, it doesn't hurt you. My site now works in Safari, Mozilla, FireFox, Opera, Netscape, and IE4/5. I have a few users that come to my site with those browsers, so I made the site to work with them. I didn't go around searching for every single browser out their, I simply know what I need to focus on, and wasting time by trying to focus on more browers would be a bad business decision.

quote:

The last case that went to court in the UK was awarded £20,000.

- If someone was awarded this money because they included accesskeys on their site, I think there is a much bigger problem here.

quote:

but a lot of people don't know what IE is, or FF, or any other. They don't even know what a browser is, all they know is that it's the "Internet". They don't complain about the "Internet" because to them why would they, the "Internet" is the thing which is working fine, it's the website or the software that making the "Internet" do funny things.

- And just about every single user that does not know, is an IE user.

quote:

So you're happy to cater for the users who are able to use IE and Firefox and completely ignore the millions who are blind or have motor disabilities and have no choice but to use other browsers such as the screen readers, Jaws, Supernova etc.

- Recrunch those numbers a bit [;)] If there were millions of people going to his site that only works in IE/FF, then I doubt he would use something that restricts more than a million people.



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 5:57:38)

quote:

wasting time by trying to focus on more browers would be a bad business decision.


Here we go again, take a look at this.

http://www.ua-wg.org/articles/mindset.html

It really isn't difficult to make your site WCAG 1 valid. Use XHTML and CSS and validate it.

quote:

If someone was awarded this money because they included accesskeys on their site


Did I say that? No, I said the fine was because the site was not accessible. A blind person sued because they were unable to access the same information that a sighted person was. I don't have the details of precisely what the problem was but I'll get onto the UAWG and get them

quote:

And just about every single user that does not know, is an IE user.


So what are you saying here? You only need to cater for the uninformed?

quote:

Recrunch those numbers a bit


I wasn't referring specifically to his site which obviously blocks access to casual visitors.

It really doesn't matter whether you get millions of disabled visitors or just one, the problem is the same. They "develop solutions" but those solutions won't work for anyone who is blind.

At best they could lose business at worst they could be sued.



Tailslide -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 6:09:10)

Building better Accessibility into a website isn't brain surgery - although there are companies out there that would like you to believe it is!

Brief list off the top of my head.

(Preferably don't use tables for layout.)
Label anything you can that might be useful - images (alt tags), forms, data tables etc
Make sure the site makes sense without stylesheets
Have text alternatives to image based/flash links
Use skip links
Don't rely on images to put your content/meaning over.
Make sure your site works without a mouse.
Make sure your site works with JS switched off.

Every site on the web has at least one blind user - Google. Google "sees" at a site exactly as a Blind user would.

It could hardly be said that including the above list in a website is overly difficult...

Edit: I should say overly difficult for companies and webdesigners not necessarily people doing personal sites for fun.



briesmith -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 6:23:03)

Tailside

This is simply unachievable.

It's all very well talking about google but google only "gets away" with what it does because its display is extremely simple; just text.

There are no on-page calculations, no forms, no navigation and so on. There are no graphics; even its own ads are "boring" simple text hyperlinks.

To say that it's possible to design one, single site that operates the same with or without its CSS defies logic, and belief.

As for turning off JavaScript and getting the same results as when it's turned on, show me how. To do all application logic server side will have an enormous impact on internet loadings and page turn round times.

To achieve what Tailside suggests would mean that every web page would look like a google page; is that what we want? Is that what disability access legislation requires?

If so then clearly the legislation conflicts with the Human Rights Act, the American Constitution and so on, all of which guarantee the right of free expression.

When can we expect the Uffizi to put up a David that the blind can appreciate? Are all books, newspapers, magazines that don't include automatically and at no extra cost a Braille version together with a magnetic media version (in every format known to man) illegal?




Tailslide -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 6:31:10)

quote:

ORIGINAL: briesmith

Tailside

This is simply unachievable.

It's all very well talking about google but google only "gets away" with what it does because its display is extremely simple; just text.

There are no on-page calculations, no forms, no navigation and so on. There are no graphics; even its own ads are "boring" simple text hyperlinks.

To say that it's possible to design one, single site that operates the same with or without its CSS defies logic, and belief.

As for turning off JavaScript and getting the same results as when it's turned on, show me how. To do all application logic server side will have an enormous impact on internet loadings and page turn round times.

To achieve what Tailside suggests would mean that every web page would look like a google page; is that what we want? Is that what disability access legislation requires?

If so then clearly the legislation conflicts with the Human Rights Act, the American Constitution and so on, all of which guarantee the right of free expression.

When can we expect the Uffizi to put up a David that the blind can appreciate? Are all books, newspapers, magazines that don't include automatically and at no extra cost a Braille version together with a magnetic media version (in every format known to man) illegal?




I think you've misunderstood me. I don't want every page to look like Google. What I'm saying is that when Google visits YOUR site it views your site in the same way a blind viewer would - no images, no stylesheets - just content.

As with the Javascript thing - what would cause the problem? You have Javascript do something on your page - you have a back-up in case JS is switched off which it is apparently for 10% of viewers. At least if JS is switched off the viewer shouldn't have something on their page that doesn't work for them (if you see what I mean).

There's nothing here that conflicts with the Human Rights Act or the expression of free speech - just think about what you're doing a bit when you design a site.

All the Uffizi need do is put up a sign saying "statue of naked man" - there problem solved, that was difficult!



briesmith -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 6:37:04)

Tailside

It won't wash I'm afraid.

Why write anything in JS if you have to do it another way as well? The only alternative to client side script is server side programming and that means more round trips as I said. OK if you've got broadband and the US is asleep, otherwise you're risking ruining the experience for the majority in order to satisfy a minority who for some reason known only to them and their maker turn JS off.

If I'm "looking" at a statue as a blind person am I really going to be happy with a cardboard notice? And what is La Scala going to do?

I notice you don't comment about CSS; what's your solution there? Tables and JavaScript?



jaybee -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 6:52:31)

quote:

I notice you don't comment about CSS; what's your solution there? Tables and JavaScript?


You've lost me completely there.

CSS replaces tables and JavaScript quite nicely. If the site has been built to be accessible it will still render as readable if the user has blocked styles.




Donkey -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 7:05:39)

quote:

If I'm "looking" at a statue as a blind person am I really going to be happy with a cardboard notice? And what is La Scala going to do?
Surely you are missing the point, it is impoosible to give a blind person exactly the same experience as a sighted person, but that doesn't mean you leave them with nothing but effectively a blank page. The objective should be to make the web site understandable and functional for as many people as possible, not to try to give them exactly the same experience as a "normaly-abled" person. They won't expect that, but they will expect to understand what's going on. To me it makes sense to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible, they've all got money and if you want them to spend some of it with you; you cater for them.



Nicole -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 7:05:43)

If you’re in the web design business and you choose to ignore accessibility as an issue, then you’re really playing with fire. The minute you know a possible problem may exist, you, as the web designer should set about correcting it, or at least putting an alternative in place, or you are liable whether you believe the law is right or wrong.

We’re not saying that blind people should be able to drive cars because everyone else can. Public and community transport is for that (that’s the alternative).

Accessibility is all about fixing a problem or providing alternatives.

Isn’t it like saying that only able bodied and intellect people should be allowed to walk to their corner store? Who cares if there’s no footpath, or whether it has dangerous cracks in it, or if something’s obstructing it, or whether it’s slippery when it’s raining or whether they have to cross a road to do so.

Isn’t that like the local council knowing that the footpath is in that condition but doesn’t bother fixing those problems? Or whether the local roads authority knows that there should be traffic lights there but thinks that “95% of people can see when cars are coming, that’s good enough!

Now is that a ludicrous situation? What’s more ludicrous? Fixing problems when you’re aware they exist or providing alternatives? Or believing that satisfying 95% of people is good enough?

Nicole



caz -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 7:08:41)

This is the key phrase that is often misunderstood in accessibility discussions,
quote:

render as readable
not the same necessarily, but informative; maybe without the pretty fluff but perfectly usable for the user's purpose. Sometimes designers forget that they are designing for users, not themselves.



Tailslide -> RE: Accesskeys... (7/28/2005 7:09:00)

quote:

ORIGINAL: briesmith

Why write anything in JS if you have to do it another way as well?


You write it in JS because often it's faster - it's client-side and no extra server-side calls etc. If you can have a backup server-side in case JS is switched off or make it so that you don't see the JS element at all with JS switched off (like if it's a JS styleswitcher for instance) then that's got to be better than having things that don't work on your site. I personally try to keep JS to the absolute minimum - just stuff that degrades well - e.g. A text resizer that doesn't appear if JS is switched off - but there's instructions on how to resize text in a browser if that's the case. I'm still learning PHP but I aim to have a PHP back-up for stuff like this so that people can have the functionality without JS too.

quote:


If I'm "looking" at a statue as a blind person am I really going to be happy with a cardboard notice? And what is La Scala going to do?


Did I say notice - (slaps head) - what I meant was a talking notice like most galleries have now for blind people where they have a headset and a commentary about the displays.

quote:


I notice you don't comment about CSS; what's your solution there? Tables and JavaScript?


I use CSS for layout and presentational information. They're the most access-friendly, lightweight, standard compliant, future proof solution. Tables are fine for stuff that needs to be in a table like a calendar or a score sheet and they can be accessible as long as labeled properly.

What I'm trying to say is acessibility and attractive websites are not mutually exclusive - it takes a bit of research and a bit of planning. Accessible sites don't have to be boring looking, they don't have to be expensive to do. It's not black magic - it doesn't disadvantage anyone. Is it possible to please 100% of people all the time - probably not, but a little effort on these things goes a long way.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.617188E-02