Message from discussion
web design for disabled users
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xt-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-08!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Community Living Chatham-Kent" <awat...@clc-k.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.disability.issues,alt.comp.blind-users
Subject: Re: web design for disabled users
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:09:56 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11vjmukiq9rg5a8@corp.supernews.com>
References: <41pql7F1fket9U1@individual.net> <11v170fl1fp6f62@corp.supernews.com> <1139986632.251341.239370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 125
"Chad Kelly" <rockradio2...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1139986632.251341.239370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.
Aaron
> --
> 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
>
|
