Message from discussion
web design for disabled users
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Johnny Winther Ronnenberg" <johnny.wint...@XYZtdcadsl.dk>
Newsgroups: alt.disability.issues,alt.comp.blind-users
References: <41pql7F1fket9U1@individual.net> <11v170fl1fp6f62@corp.supernews.com> <1139986632.251341.239370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <11vjmukiq9rg5a8@corp.supernews.com>
Subject: Re: web design for disabled users
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:09:18 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <43fa21f7$0$167$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.62.61.212
X-Trace: 1140466168 dread11.news.tele.dk 167 80.62.61.212:55286
X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk
Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote:
> "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!
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 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.
Check this for at start:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connectability.ca%2Fconnectability%2Fpages%2Fsitetour%2Findex.html&ss=1&outline=1
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.
Best regards
Johnny Winther Ronnenberg
--
Det er brugeren der bestemmer ;-)
http://www.ronnenberg.dk/webaccessibility/
Last: revision:
http://www.ronnenberg.dk/webaccessibility/upcomingwork.asp (danish
only) and
http://www.ronnenberg.dk/webaccessibility/lettheuserchoose.asp
|
