I will be writing something about webdesign considering disabled users for my school English lessons. I am mainly interested in visual and other physical disabilities.
Now I'm looking for some answers preferably from disabled users: Q1: How accessible is the web for you? Q2: What are your accessibility issues when using the web? Q3: What could web designers do to make the web more accessible?
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:53:28 +0100, chlori <usenet...@arto.ch> wrote: >Hello
>I will be writing something about webdesign considering >disabled users for my school English lessons. I am mainly >interested in visual and other physical disabilities.
I'd advise, as far as blind users are concerned, trying to navigate some sites with no mouse, for a start, Also realise that from the point of view of blind people who use speech, its often the place where you can tab to which is known about. You cannot, for instance quickly scroll up and down a page of links as you can when sighted, so pages made with zillions of links before the text of the page and no short cut link to the guts of the page are immensely tiresome!
I explained this to one chap by getting him to look at his page through a toilet roll centre and navigate with no mouse.
Brian
-- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: bria...@blueyonder.co.uk ___________________________________________________________________________ _ __________________________________
news:41pql7F1fket9U1@individual.net... | Hello | | I will be writing something about webdesign considering | disabled users for my school English lessons. I am mainly | interested in visual and other physical disabilities. | | Now I'm looking for some answers preferably from disabled users: | Q1: How accessible is the web for you? | Q2: What are your accessibility issues when using the web? | Q3: What could web designers do to make the web more accessible? | | Thanks for your replies and/or links! | | -- | chlori
should tell you more than you ever needed. not going to do your homework for you but a few comments
In alt.disability.issues chlori <usenet...@arto.ch> wrote:
> I will be writing something about webdesign considering > disabled users for my school English lessons. I am mainly > interested in visual and other physical disabilities. > Now I'm looking for some answers preferably from disabled users: > Q1: How accessible is the web for you?
less now than it was before (I've been on what passes for the web for over 30 years) it gets less accessible every year
> Q2: What are your accessibility issues when using the web?
too dang much "eye candy" stuff that is put there that does nothing
> Q3: What could web designers do to make the web more accessible?
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acces...@smartnospam.net NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*# THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It overcomes many disability issues although it's not compatible with many "alternative devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button (or have other sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read any pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially becomes an interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to different kinds of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the users's needs and let them go it alone from there. This kind of technology is in place at http://www.connectability.ca/connectability/pages/sitetour/index.html, a Community Living agency out of Toronto, Ontario helping people with an intellectual disability.
You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the physical disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet Explorer, I believe it could be customized to access the internet without needing to touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the voice recognition of each user and you teach it as you go. This wouldn't work however with many of the technologies mentioned below because this is a software solution. (Although some devices are becoming more appropriately voice activated such as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of tools such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web design that will allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and read/interact with the internet. (This is the kind of technology that might some day be able to let you turn your lights on at home while on vacation in Fiji by logging into a website.) XHTML allows the designer to "flag" certain areas so that for example a user could connect to a website using a some kind of reading device that lets it know how to handle each area (so the lights in the example above wouldn't need to worry about information such as pictures or other text, just commands meant for the lights). In this case, the improvement for disabled users comes from the union of the website developer's code and the products that connect to it which so far isn't happening widescale. What we're left with are devices such as cell phones that try their best to interpret older websites but are really just scratching the surface. You can thank the flood of websites designed by Microsoft Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver that make things simple for average joe designers, but limit applications such as this.
Aaron Watson, Information Management Facilitator Community Living Chatham-Kent
P.S. I'm not disabled but it's part of my job to research accessibilty technologies. It's part of the reason I've been scanning this group. Sorry if I've jumped the gun with my "tech-talk".
> I will be writing something about webdesign considering disabled users for > my school English lessons. I am mainly interested in visual and other > physical disabilities.
> Now I'm looking for some answers preferably from disabled users: > Q1: How accessible is the web for you? > Q2: What are your accessibility issues when using the web? > Q3: What could web designers do to make the web more accessible?
>> I will be writing something about webdesign considering disabled users >> for my school English lessons. I am mainly interested in visual and other >> physical disabilities.
>> Now I'm looking for some answers preferably from disabled users: >> Q1: How accessible is the web for you? >> Q2: What are your accessibility issues when using the web? >> Q3: What could web designers do to make the web more accessible?
Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: > You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It overcomes > many disability issues although it's not compatible with many "alternative > devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For > instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button (or have other > sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read any > pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially becomes an > interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to different kinds > of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the users's needs.
I personally do not think Flash is very good at all for accessibility. For the most part it is used a a graphical medium, you also need to use a mouse and it does not work (very well) with many screne readers.
I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!. If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them.
> You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the physical > disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet Explorer, I > believe it could be customized to access the internet without needing to > touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the voice recognition of each > user and you teach it as you go. This wouldn't work however with many of > the technologies mentioned below because this is a software solution. > (Although some devices are becoming more appropriately voice activated such > as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
> Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of tools > such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web design that will > allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and > read/interact with the internet.
I think your getting a bit a head of yourself here!. While I think XHTML has some great pertencial, it will not be very functional in it's true form for a year or two yet. The main reason why is because IE6 does not support XHTML yet, served with it's proper mime type which is XML, (I think). So all current documents still need to be served eather as HTML4.01Strict, or as XHTML1.0Strict, served up to IE as HTML. So that is why not many people use it. Also, it's not really known as too how much of XHTML will be supported in IE7.
> this case, the improvement for disabled users comes from the union of the > website developer's code and the products that connect to it which so far > isn't happening widescale. What we're left with are devices such as cell > phones that try their best to interpret older websites but are really just > scratching the surface. You can thank the flood of websites designed by > Microsoft Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver that make things simple for > average joe designers, but limit applications such as this.
That is a load of rubbish. DW in recent versions has had very good support for XHTML, while FP has never supported anything, a part from a few MS specific tags. It's due to the reasons staited above as to why XHTML has not been and is not very well supported, by many "Professional Web Designers". -- Note,I only do web design as a hobby, but have been reading up on why a lot of people in the job do not use XHTML. Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
I'm sorry. I don't market Macromedia Flash despite the way it might have come out -- Toronto has been fairly successful in using it to give people with intellectual disabilities a chance to build a communication network for people with disabilities and their families - the link was posted with my previous post if you want to check it out. I also gave examples of how the technology could be applied for the visually impared (not that it's been done but I know the software and I know it's possible and not difficult to do). I'm not saying that it's easily adapted or that there is even alot of content out there now, but it is indeed possible if specific disabilities are considered during the web creation process -- that is my evidence. I'm not suggesting that Flash will revitalize the web for people with disabilities, but for sites focused on providing information to people with disabilities, it is certainly an option. I'll post the link a second time in case you didn't notice it. Cheers!
> Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: >> You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It overcomes >> many disability issues although it's not compatible with many >> "alternative >> devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For >> instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button (or have >> other >> sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read any >> pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially becomes >> an >> interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to different >> kinds >> of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the users's >> needs. > I personally do not think Flash is very good at all for accessibility. > For the most part it is used a a graphical medium, you also need to use > a mouse and it does not work (very well) with many screne readers.
You wouldn't need a screen reader for Flash if the content itself was built to read the screen! Accessiblity keys could be used as with Javascript so that function keys replace mouse movent to perform actions. Or if combined with Dragon as outlined below, voice commands could navigate the site.
>> and let them go it alone from there. This kind of technology is in place >> at >> http://www.connectability.ca/connectability/pages/sitetour/index.html, a >> Community Living agency out of Toronto, Ontario helping people with an >> intellectual disability. > I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to > load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time > waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!. > If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should > just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created > for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them.
I agree that it takes some time for flash sites to load (something I hope Ma' Bell fixes in the future by providing affordable high speed internet to more constituents in urban and rural areas), I just think that HTML in itself can be very limiting in some ways. You're using screen readers and other things to adapt to HTML (which I admit will overall expand your web experience allowing you wider web accessiblilty at this point) but I'm saying you could be in for a very different experience by instead having a site or two that adapt to you. I'm disappointed that you were also willing to judge the site I mentioned before actually seeing it. If you saw what it did and it was still not to your liking, I would consider it a fair assessment.
>> You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the physical >> disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet Explorer, I >> believe it could be customized to access the internet without needing to >> touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the voice recognition of each >> user and you teach it as you go. This wouldn't work however with many of >> the technologies mentioned below because this is a software solution. >> (Although some devices are becoming more appropriately voice activated >> such >> as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
>> Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of tools >> such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web design that >> will >> allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and >> read/interact with the internet. > I think your getting a bit a head of yourself here!. > While I think XHTML has some great pertencial, it will not be very > functional in it's true form for a year or two yet. > The main reason why is because IE6 does not support XHTML yet, served > with it's proper mime type which is XML, (I think). > So all current documents still need to be served eather as > HTML4.01Strict, or as XHTML1.0Strict, served up to IE as HTML. > So that is why not many people use it. > Also, it's not really known as too how much of XHTML will be supported > in IE7.
I didn't say the technology was here, but that it wasn't far off. XML is being taught in Universities today. XHTML will no doubt be with us in the next couple of years as you mentioned. But IE and personal computers won't necessarily be the only browswer technology out there just as it isn't now. XML has the capacity to reinvent HTML so that almost any device with an internet connection could connect to and read parts of a website that only applied to it. (For instance a cell phone could be programmed to view content only tagged as <phone> in the XHTML).
>> this case, the improvement for disabled users comes from the union of the >> website developer's code and the products that connect to it which so far >> isn't happening widescale. What we're left with are devices such as cell >> phones that try their best to interpret older websites but are really >> just >> scratching the surface. You can thank the flood of websites designed by >> Microsoft Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver that make things simple >> for >> average joe designers, but limit applications such as this. > That is a load of rubbish. > DW in recent versions has had very good support for XHTML, while FP has > never supported anything, a part from a few MS specific tags. > It's due to the reasons staited above as to why XHTML has not been and > is not very well supported, by many "Professional Web Designers".
I am suggesting however that easily 30-40% of websites out there are NOT designed by professionals and that Frontpage and Dreamweaver (and lets not forget Netscapes little WYSIWYG editor) in their various incarnations over the years have allowed sites to be created outside the Web Accessability Guidlines let alone to include XHTML for disabilities. I'm talking about the high school students making a web page for their father's small business or using a personal web space for a blog. XML support would be a great advantage to web accessibility and we're only beginning to see the potential.
While I do understand your points Chad, I don't appreciate having my input noted as "a load of rubbish" and continue to offer the same level of respect to everyone.
> -- > Note,I only do web design as a hobby, but have been reading up on why > a lot of people in the job do not use XHTML. > Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: > I'm sorry. I don't market Macromedia Flash despite the way it might > have come out -- Toronto has been fairly successful in using it to > give people with intellectual disabilities a chance to build a > communication network for people with disabilities and their families > - the link was posted with my previous post if you want to check it > out.
I entered the site using the tab key instead of getting a look of the frontpage or time to scroll down, I ended up on a new page. That is not accessibility by any standards ;-(
>I also gave examples of how the technology could be applied for > the visually impared (not that it's been done but I know the software > and I know it's possible and not difficult to do). I'm not saying > that it's easily adapted or that there is even alot of content out > there now, but it is indeed possible if specific disabilities are > considered during the web creation process -- that is my evidence.
Well all texts are imbedded in images, thats not accessibility ;-)
One does implement accessibility for one or another disability.
Accessibility is about given all users equal access, whether they are grumpy old men, blind and deaf, have no hands......
In accessibility one can not discriminate any one, no group are to small. One for all and all for one ;-)
> I'm not suggesting that Flash will revitalize the web for people with > disabilities, but for sites focused on providing information to > people with disabilities, it is certainly an option.
Yes the worst option.
>I'll post the > link a second time in case you didn't notice it. Cheers!
I checked it the first time, which where why I reacted. It's inaccessible simple as that. I consider it a bit out of line, rude are maybe a more appropriate word here, to present a graphical based website in a group for people with VI.
>> Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: >>> You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It >>> overcomes many disability issues although it's not compatible with >>> many "alternative >>> devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For >>> instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button >>> (or have other >>> sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read >>> any pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially >>> becomes an >>> interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to >>> different kinds >>> of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the >>> users's needs. >> I personally do not think Flash is very good at all for >> accessibility. For the most part it is used a a graphical medium, >> you also need to use a mouse and it does not work (very well) with >> many screne readers. > You wouldn't need a screen reader for Flash if the content itself was > built to read the screen!
Which is not an option, at the moment its not posible and why bypass the users choose of a screenreader?
>Accessiblity keys could be used as with > Javascript so that function keys replace mouse movent to perform > actions.
Access keys and Javascript goes together as well as the devil fucking the pope.
>Or if combined with Dragon as outlined below, voice > commands could navigate the site.
The user have a rigth to expect it to be software independent, its actually the point of HTML
>>> and let them go it alone from there. This kind of technology is in >>> place at >>> http://www.connectability.ca/connectability/pages/sitetour/index.html, >>> a Community Living agency out of Toronto, Ontario helping people >>> with an intellectual disability. >> I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to >> load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time >> waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!. >> If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should >> just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created >> for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them. > I agree that it takes some time for flash sites to load (something I > hope Ma' Bell fixes in the future by providing affordable high speed > internet to more constituents in urban and rural areas), I just think > that HTML in itself can be very limiting in some ways. You're using > screen readers and other things to adapt to HTML (which I admit will > overall expand your web experience allowing you wider web > accessiblilty at this point) but I'm saying you could be in for a > very different experience by instead having a site or two that adapt > to you.
There are a hell of a long way untill that happens. To me it sounds like you have your head up yor arse.
>I'm disappointed that you were also willing to judge the > site I mentioned before actually seeing it. If you saw what it did > and it was still not to your liking, I would consider it a fair > assessment.
>>> You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the >>> physical disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet >>> Explorer, I believe it could be customized to access the internet >>> without needing to touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the >>> voice recognition of each user and you teach it as you go. This >>> wouldn't work however with many of the technologies mentioned below >>> because this is a software solution. (Although some devices are >>> becoming more appropriately voice activated such >>> as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
>>> Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of >>> tools such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web >>> design that will >>> allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and >>> read/interact with the internet. >> I think your getting a bit a head of yourself here!. >> While I think XHTML has some great pertencial, it will not be very >> functional in it's true form for a year or two yet. >> The main reason why is because IE6 does not support XHTML yet, served >> with it's proper mime type which is XML, (I think). >> So all current documents still need to be served eather as >> HTML4.01Strict, or as XHTML1.0Strict, served up to IE as HTML. >> So that is why not many people use it. >> Also, it's not really known as too how much of XHTML will be >> supported in IE7. > I didn't say the technology was here, but that it wasn't far off. XML is > being taught in Universities today.
Yes but Neither IE, FF or OP can handle it, so until browsers understand it in an meningfull way, its not an option.
>XHTML will no doubt be > with us in the next couple of years as you mentioned. But IE and > personal computers won't necessarily be the only browswer technology > out there just as it isn't now.
If you expect that users wil shift to other browser, you are plain dumb, the majority of users have no choise, it the IT departments responsibility.
>XML has the capacity to reinvent HTML > so that almost any device with an internet connection could connect > to and read parts of a website that only applied to it. (For > instance a cell phone could be programmed to view content only tagged > as <phone> in the XHTML).
XML cannot do anything other than (X)HTML, if you belive otherwise, you are wrong and I would like you to prove it beyond doubts.
>>> this case, the improvement for disabled users comes from the union >>> of the website developer's code and the products that connect to it >>> which so far isn't happening widescale. What we're left with are >>> devices such as cell phones that try their best to interpret older >>> websites but are really just >>> scratching the surface. You can thank the flood of websites >>> designed by Microsoft Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver that >>> make things simple for >>> average joe designers, but limit applications such as this. >> That is a load of rubbish. >> DW in recent versions has had very good support for XHTML, while FP >> has never supported anything, a part from a few MS specific tags. >> It's due to the reasons staited above as to why XHTML has not been >> and is not very well supported, by many "Professional Web Designers". > I am suggesting however that easily 30-40% of websites out there are > NOT designed by professionals and that Frontpage and Dreamweaver (and > lets not forget Netscapes little WYSIWYG editor) in their various > incarnations over the years have allowed sites to be created outside > the Web Accessability Guidlines let alone to include XHTML for > disabilities. I'm talking about the high school students making a > web page for their father's small business or using a personal web > space for a blog. XML support would be a great advantage to web > accessibility and we're only beginning to see the potential.
XML are designed for helping integrating different databases etc. in a united view and not to impletent the standard of accessibility.
But you did not expect to find people with official degrees in webdevelopment here, did you? I know, you whére just unlucky to stumble into one ;-)
If you made that site, I suggest that you put it on review in alt.www.webmaster and I promise you, I will rip the code apart and find all the litle flaws, you dont think are there. But I can tell you rigth now, you wont like it.
Websites that cant validate cannot be accessible. First you need to make the document valid, then you test for accessibililty and then you dig into the code and do a line by line analysis. When that works, you need guys like Chaddy and Gaff, to find the real tricky points. Its not what the standard says, it how its interpretated by assistive technology that counts.
Did you test the site in different screenreaders? No, why should you? And not a sound came out of my speakers, while I had a look at it, so there are not any in build help there, as you suggest.
Well all I know is that as a user of Jaws5.10 with IE6, I find pages with Macromedia Flash to be extremely annoying since it changes the behavior of the screen reader On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Community Living
> I'm sorry. I don't market Macromedia Flash despite the way it might have > come out -- Toronto has been fairly successful in using it to give people > with intellectual disabilities a chance to build a communication network for > people with disabilities and their families - the link was posted with my > previous post if you want to check it out. I also gave examples of how the > technology could be applied for the visually impared (not that it's been > done but I know the software and I know it's possible and not difficult to > do). I'm not saying that it's easily adapted or that there is even alot of > content out there now, but it is indeed possible if specific disabilities > are considered during the web creation process -- that is my evidence. I'm > not suggesting that Flash will revitalize the web for people with > disabilities, but for sites focused on providing information to people with > disabilities, it is certainly an option. I'll post the link a second time > in case you didn't notice it. Cheers!
I think you and Chad are missing my point. Although posted on the alt.blind newsgroup (because the original poster asked for web design related visual AND physical issues), the information I posted was meant as broadbased and general so as to include support for many disabilities. The site I provided was an example of what a particular Community Living agency was doing with the technology (I don't have a direct hand in any of it as we're city indepentent so critique away regarding the code ;-) ), but I was happy to hear that it was helping people and actually has a decent client base after a couple of years being active as an ongoing project. Our agency handles intellectual disabilities; particularly deinstitutionalization and helping them interact with the community and improve their quality of life whererever possible (including providing network and internet resources) however many of the people we support have other disabilities including physical and visual which we must also contend with. The actual website sample I was mentioning doesn't have all of the technology I was trying to explain, however the potential is there. I'm trying to draw attention to that potential, not the website. I apologize for overlooking the fact that screenreader's would be used to view that particular demo and I'm not suggesting that the Toronto site does the trick. Please understand that visual diablilities are not my area of expertise and that I was attempting to address the original poster's question about what technologies could be used for web design to assist people with disabilities and I've seen the potential in Flash as an option. Also, the site sample provided doesn't contain the XML specifications I was mentioning (nor do I remember saying specifically that it did. These were two separate ideas) so scanning it for XHTML validitiy is would be a further exercise in futility. My point about XML is that it has the potential to help people with some accessiblity issues by pinpointing areas of code that could interface BETTER with screenreaders and other peices of hardware yet to come. I thought I was clear that neither technology is an instant fix but it is growing and has the potential to help people! As for the web accessiblity guidelines, I'm all for them. But with a flash built site, they won't always do well on the automated validity scans and the sample site should probably have been tagged as HTML Loose for now. I believe most of the development has gone into the Flash portion of it. However if the content allows for all of the consessions made in the web accessibility guidelines then it could show up as failed and still work fine for disabled users. The flash content could literally read itself without the need for extra hardware.
>If you expect that users wil shift to other browser, you are plain dumb, >the majority of users have no choise, it the IT departments responsibility.
I never mentioned a change in browser although eventually new versions will come out with more potential. My point was about improved "browsing technologies" such as better screen readers or other devices that could be web accessible without the need for a PC. (Such as the voice activated cell phone example I mentioned before)
> There are a hell of a long way untill that happens. To me it sounds like > you have your head up yor arse.
The Flash site used at Toronto has logins for each individual signed up and customizes the content to fit their particular disability. Once a user is logged in, people who may have literacy issues have content read to them, people who don't, won't. Content could change button sizes and contrast for moderately visually impaired so they can have a personalized experience. As for the connectivity issues, there is a movement in our areas to provide wireless high speed internet for the cost of DSL. Rural areas in our county now have access to 1.5 Mbps for the cost of regular DSL. I believe that the technology for this kind of experience is here now. We just need some talented, forward thinking people to help get it into play.
I'm only trying to help with positive feedback and I am surprised at what appears to me to be a largely negative response. Healthy debate I can understand. Openly insulting and demoralizing someone for having an opinion about surfacing technologies? I can only assume that I've stepped on some toes.
>>> Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: >>>> You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It >>>> overcomes many disability issues although it's not compatible with >>>> many "alternative >>>> devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For >>>> instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button >>>> (or have other >>>> sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read >>>> any pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially >>>> becomes an >>>> interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to >>>> different kinds >>>> of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the >>>> users's needs. >>> I personally do not think Flash is very good at all for >>> accessibility. For the most part it is used a a graphical medium, >>> you also need to use a mouse and it does not work (very well) with >>> many screne readers. >> You wouldn't need a screen reader for Flash if the content itself was >> built to read the screen!
> Which is not an option, at the moment its not posible and why bypass the > users choose of a screenreader?
>>Accessiblity keys could be used as with >> Javascript so that function keys replace mouse movent to perform >> actions.
> Access keys and Javascript goes together as well as the devil fucking the > pope.
>>Or if combined with Dragon as outlined below, voice >> commands could navigate the site.
> The user have a rigth to expect it to be software independent, its > actually the point of HTML
>>>> and let them go it alone from there. This kind of technology is in >>>> place at >>>> http://www.connectability.ca/connectability/pages/sitetour/index.html, >>>> a Community Living agency out of Toronto, Ontario helping people >>>> with an intellectual disability. >>> I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to >>> load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time >>> waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!. >>> If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should >>> just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created >>> for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them. >> I agree that it takes some time for flash sites to load (something I >> hope Ma' Bell fixes in the future by providing affordable high speed >> internet to more constituents in urban and rural areas), I just think >> that HTML in itself can be very limiting in some ways. You're using >> screen readers and other things to adapt to HTML (which I admit will >> overall expand your web experience allowing you wider web >> accessiblilty at this point) but I'm saying you could be in for a >> very different experience by instead having a site or two that adapt >> to you.
> There are a hell of a long way untill that happens. To me it sounds like > you have your head up yor arse.
>>I'm disappointed that you were also willing to judge the >> site I mentioned before actually seeing it. If you saw what it did >> and it was still not to your liking, I would consider it a fair >> assessment.
> Saw ? How? Heard wold be more appretiate.
>>>> You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the >>>> physical disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet >>>> Explorer, I believe it could be customized to access the internet >>>> without needing to touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the >>>> voice recognition of each user and you teach it as you go. This >>>> wouldn't work however with many of the technologies mentioned below >>>> because this is a software solution. (Although some devices are >>>> becoming more appropriately voice activated such >>>> as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
>>>> Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of >>>> tools such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web >>>> design that will >>>> allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and >>>> read/interact with the internet. >>> I think your getting a bit a head of yourself here!. >>> While I think XHTML has some great pertencial, it will not be very >>> functional in it's true form for a year or two yet. >>> The main reason why is because IE6 does not support XHTML yet, served >>> with it's proper mime type which is XML, (I think). >>> So all current documents still need to be served eather as >>> HTML4.01Strict, or as XHTML1.0Strict, served up to IE as HTML. >>> So that is why not many people use it. >>> Also, it's not really known as too how much of XHTML will be >>> supported in IE7. >> I didn't say the technology was here, but that it wasn't far off. XML is >> being taught in Universities today.
> Yes but Neither IE, FF or OP can handle it, so until browsers understand > it in an meningfull way, its not an option.
>>XHTML will no doubt be >> with us in the next couple of years as you mentioned. But IE and >> personal computers won't necessarily be the only browswer technology >> out there just as it isn't now.
> If you expect that users wil shift to other browser, you are plain
> I think you and Chad are missing my point. Although posted on the > alt.blind newsgroup (because the original poster asked for web design > related visual AND physical issues), the information I posted was > meant as broadbased and general so as to include support for many > disabilities. The site I provided was an example of what a > particular Community Living agency was doing with the technology (I > don't have a direct hand in any of it as we're city indepentent so > critique away regarding the code ;-) ), but I was happy to hear that > it was helping people and actually has a decent client base after a > couple of years being active as an ongoing project. Our agency > handles intellectual disabilities; particularly > deinstitutionalization and helping them interact with the community > and improve their quality of life whererever possible (including > providing network and internet resources) however many of the people > we support have other disabilities including physical and visual > which we must also contend with. The actual website sample I was > mentioning doesn't have all of the technology I was trying to > explain, however the potential is there. I'm trying to draw > attention to that potential, not the website. I apologize for overlooking > the fact that screenreader's would be > used to view that particular demo and I'm not suggesting that the > Toronto site does the trick. Please understand that visual > diablilities are not my area of expertise and that I was attempting > to address the original poster's question about what technologies > could be used for web design to assist people with disabilities and > I've seen the potential in Flash as an option. Also, the site sample > provided doesn't contain the XML specifications I was mentioning (nor > do I remember saying specifically that it did. These were two > separate ideas) so scanning it for XHTML validitiy is would be a > further exercise in futility. My point about XML is that it has the > potential to help people with some accessiblity issues by pinpointing > areas of code that could interface BETTER with screenreaders and > other peices of hardware yet to come. I thought I was clear that > neither technology is an instant fix but it is growing and has the > potential to help people! As for the web accessiblity guidelines, I'm all > for them. But with a > flash built site, they won't always do well on the automated validity > scans and the sample site should probably have been tagged as HTML > Loose for now. I believe most of the development has gone into the > Flash portion of it. However if the content allows for all of the > consessions made in the web accessibility guidelines then it could > show up as failed and still work fine for disabled users. The flash > content could literally read itself without the need for extra > hardware.
You seems to be sincere, and you are right XML does offers possibilities that could be exploited in assecessibility, as wel in ordinary webdesign. But it will take another 5 to 10 years before browsers are compliant with the current evolution.
What flash should not do is interfere in the reading of a page, thats is the screenreaders job. if it enhance their reading through specialised stylesheets, it might have chance to survive among VIP's
>> If you expect that users wil shift to other browser, you are plain >> dumb, the majority of users have no choise, it the IT departments >> responsibility. > I never mentioned a change in browser although eventually new > versions will come out with more potential. My point was about > improved "browsing technologies" such as better screen readers or > other devices that could be web accessible without the need for a PC. > (Such as the voice activated cell phone example I mentioned before)
Both browsers and screenreaders seems to have a cyclus of 3 to 4 years allthough sceenreaders seems to have a shorter cycle, but upgrades are not free and might draw the timeline backwards.
>> There are a hell of a long way untill that happens. To me it sounds >> like you have your head up yor arse. > The Flash site used at Toronto has logins for each individual signed > up and customizes the content to fit their particular disability. Once a > user is logged in, people who may have literacy issues have > content read to them, people who don't, won't. Content could change > button sizes and contrast for moderately visually impaired so they > can have a personalized experience. As for the connectivity issues, there > is a movement in our areas to > provide wireless high speed internet for the cost of DSL. Rural > areas in our county now have access to 1.5 Mbps for the cost of > regular DSL. I believe that the technology for this kind of > experience is here now. We just need some talented, forward thinking > people to help get it into play. > I'm only trying to help with positive feedback and I am surprised at > what appears to me to be a largely negative response. Healthy debate > I can understand. Openly insulting and demoralizing someone for > having an opinion about surfacing technologies? I can only assume > that I've stepped on some toes.
You certainly steppede on mine and I am not blind or particulary visual impaired. Last spring I nearly lost my good eye, so for a couple of weeks, I had only twenty percent vision my sparrings partner in the danish webdesign groups, could not help me, so when the patch came of, I started an intense study of accessible webdesign. And I have spend every available minut since, in trying to understand it.
Most webmasters wont even consider trying a site in a scrennreader and they wil definetively not try it in lynx.
But there is only one way to understand how a site will work for disabled, plug out your sceen and mouse. If you can get around, you are close. Online validators are of litle use, they are great for pointing out weak spots. But the work is only in its early begining. Flash? its in the early beginning and unless they listen to all disabeled users, it will newer get further. Harsh words, I know, but it is the truth.
> > Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote: > >> You could also consider using Macromedia Flash if possible. It overcomes > >> many disability issues although it's not compatible with many > >> "alternative > >> devices" (mentioned below) that can connect to and read web pages. For > >> instance a flash site could easily speak the name of a button (or have > >> other > >> sound cues) everytime the mouse passed over/near it and could read any > >> pertinent information on each area of the site. It essentially becomes > >> an > >> interactive movie. You could even have areas of it cued to different > >> kinds > >> of disabilities so that you could select settings based on the users's > >> needs. > > I personally do not think Flash is very good at all for accessibility. > > For the most part it is used a a graphical medium, you also need to use > > a mouse and it does not work (very well) with many screne readers. > You wouldn't need a screen reader for Flash if the content itself was built > to read the screen! Accessiblity keys could be used as with Javascript so > that function keys replace mouse movent to perform actions. Or if combined > with Dragon as outlined below, voice commands could navigate the site.
I am not disagreeing with that, I just have not noticed many situations where Flash has been accessable. As an example, Flash used in it's most common form makes very hard to decrease and increase font sizes to make for easyer reading for those of us with low vision.
> >> and let them go it alone from there. This kind of technology is in place > >> at > >> http://www.connectability.ca/connectability/pages/sitetour/index.html, a > >> Community Living agency out of Toronto, Ontario helping people with an > >> intellectual disability. > > I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to > > load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time > > waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!. > > If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should > > just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created > > for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them. > I agree that it takes some time for flash sites to load (something I hope > Ma' Bell fixes in the future by providing affordable high speed internet to > more constituents in urban and rural areas), I just think that HTML in > itself can be very limiting in some ways. You're using screen readers and > other things to adapt to HTML (which I admit will overall expand your web > experience allowing you wider web accessiblilty at this point) but I'm > saying you could be in for a very different experience by instead having a > site or two that adapt to you. I'm disappointed that you were also willing > to judge the site I mentioned before actually seeing it. If you saw what it > did and it was still not to your liking, I would consider it a fair > assessment.
I must say, I do agree with you to an extent, about your adapting theory, but, really, if a web document is structured properly, the user should be able to have full control over how he or she views the document, through the use of custom font sizes etc etc. In my experience, that does not seam to happen with many Flash websites. You end up stuck with whatever the designer thinks looks good. Hence, my reference to plain old HTML, yes, on it's own it's very baysic, but add some Server Side scripting and maybe a Stylesheet, and some great things will happen. On that note, you can have CSS file for the mobile device as well, so not even those people who choose to use such devices are missing out.
> >> You could consider Dragon Naturally Speaking to help with the physical > >> disabilities. Although I've not tested it using Internet Explorer, I > >> believe it could be customized to access the internet without needing to > >> touch a keyboard. Profiles are set up for the voice recognition of each > >> user and you teach it as you go. This wouldn't work however with many of > >> the technologies mentioned below because this is a software solution. > >> (Although some devices are becoming more appropriately voice activated > >> such > >> as some of the newer cell phones able to call mom by saying "mom".)
> >> Another thing is that Web Designers don't usually make full use of tools > >> such as XHTML. New language standards are emerging in web design that > >> will > >> allow devices like Cell Phones or other tools to connect to and > >> read/interact with the internet. > > I think your getting a bit a head of yourself here!. > > While I think XHTML has some great pertencial, it will not be very > > functional in it's true form for a year or two yet. > > The main reason why is because IE6 does not support XHTML yet, served > > with it's proper mime type which is XML, (I think). > > So all current documents still need to be served eather as > > HTML4.01Strict, or as XHTML1.0Strict, served up to IE as HTML. > > So that is why not many people use it. > > Also, it's not really known as too how much of XHTML will be supported > > in IE7. > I didn't say the technology was here, but that it wasn't far off. XML is > being taught in Universities today. XHTML will no doubt be with us in the > next couple of years as you mentioned. But IE and personal computers won't > necessarily be the only browswer technology out there just as it isn't now. > XML has the capacity to reinvent HTML so that almost any device with an > internet connection could connect to and read parts of a website that only > applied to it. (For instance a cell phone could be programmed to view > content only tagged as <phone> in the XHTML).
I do agree that the humbloe web browser is not the only thing that will be able to access web sites in the future, but, all I am saying is that in the short term, strate XHTML is not a good option for serving web pages. The majority of people will still be useing IE6 for a while yet.
> >> this case, the improvement for disabled users comes from the union of the > >> website developer's code and the products that connect to it which so far > >> isn't happening widescale. What we're left with are devices such as cell > >> phones that try their best to interpret older websites but are really > >> just > >> scratching the surface. You can thank the flood of websites designed by > >> Microsoft Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver that make things simple > >> for > >> average joe designers, but limit applications such as this. > > That is a load of rubbish. > > DW in recent versions has had very good support for XHTML, while FP has > > never supported anything, a part from a few MS specific tags. > > It's due to the reasons staited above as to why XHTML has not been and > > is not very well supported, by many "Professional Web Designers". > I am suggesting however that easily 30-40% of websites out there are NOT > designed by professionals and that Frontpage and Dreamweaver (and lets not > forget Netscapes little WYSIWYG editor) in their various incarnations over > the years have allowed sites to be created outside the Web Accessability > Guidlines let alone to include XHTML for disabilities. I'm talking about > the high school students making a web page for their father's small business > or using a personal web space for a blog. XML support would be a great > advantage to web accessibility and we're only beginning to see the > potential.
Yes, that's very interesting, it's not just DW and FP though that make the web inaccessable, put it this way, at least with some badly coded HTML, you can override it. You can not say the same about MacromediaFlash. A lot of those same High School students who use DW in a bad way, also use MM Flash in the wrong way as well.
> While I do understand your points Chad, I don't appreciate having my input > noted as "a load of rubbish" and continue to offer the same level of respect > to everyone.
> Aaron.
That's good. Note, I do respect your views, but I am yet to notice a site that is totally accessible that makes full use of Flash. The example that you noted was ok when I got to the site, but as most of it was graphical based, I found it unuseable with my Screen reader. I hope that helps. -- Regards Chad. Website now at http://home.primus.com.au/kellykk/freewebdesignonline
|
