WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility Observations

for

From: Mark Rew
Date: Feb 26, 2002 6:18AM

Accessibility ObservationsRaleigh,

A valuable discussion. I'm in a unique position in that I'm a blind screen reader user, and the project manager for a team of Web application developers. I agree with the ease for a screen reader to read a linear text, but there are other issues. The other day I had to review several corporate policies, which are available on the corporate Website. To read these policies one starts at a page of links to each policy, then each policy has a page with additional links to subsections etc. I ended up cutting and pasting the text into a single file so I could read it from beginning to end. This was the copy I sent to my staff to review.

Having said all of that: A single linear text file does not allow for jumping to individual sections, or provide for the best use of the screen layout. There needs to be links to portions of a linear document. Therefore,the user can jump to the portion they want, while another reader can read linearly from beginning to end.

The largest problem I find with text equivalent pages is the maintenance. Often Web authors will keep the graphically designed page up to date, but not the text page. Website maintenance is a difficult phase to manage and expensive.

The newer screen readers such as Jaws 4.0x are handling features as multiple columns and tables better. I encourage professionals to use the latest tools for accessing the information they need.

If a website is going to use text alternative pages for providing access to older browsers and screen readers they should use automated tools to keep the text current with the main web pages. Plus, they must provide all of the features available from the graphical pages.

Even though I have accessibility and usability as central in the initial design there have been cases where I let less than fully compliant products be released to meet deadlines. Accessibility must be considered from the beginning of application development it is still a difficult issue to fully address.

What I find more of a problem in the usability of a site when accessing with my screen reader is to wade through many navigation links before reaching the information I wanted to read in the first place. This is why I dislike many of the frame sites. After clicking on a link then all of the frames information prior to the information I want is spoken. If I know what frame the information is in I can jump to it, but usually I'm not sure where my information is located. Thus, I scroll through text fast as possible until I come to what I want to read. Second, it is very frustrating to scroll through what seems to be hundredths of links just to read a paragraph or two only to come to a link that only says "next."

Nothing takes the place of good usability design with the reader's point of view in mind.

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: Raleigh Way
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:24 AM
Subject: Accessibility Observations


Hello everyone,


I have been monitoring dialogue about accessibility issues on several lists for the past few months. I am relatively new to accessibility and Web page design, but not quite an amateur; I know what is required to make a page accessible, I know the limitations of the browsers, CSS, screen reading software, Web page layout (usability), etc. Here is my observation:


Think for a minute about the many browsers and screen reading software in use. We must assume there is every possible combination in use out there. In my opinion, it is impossible to accommodate every situation. It is unrealistic to assume that every combination of browser/screen reader can access every "accessible" web page no matter how well it was constructed. Ok, then, what does work? What is the common denominator? The answer I keep coming back to is linearity. I've surfed a lot of sites designed for people with disabilities, e.g., schools for the blind, and the one thing that I notice is that the sites are linear. By linear design, I mean left-to-right layout of text to accommodate older screen readers.


Imagine going into a site (blind) and having to figure out the page layout and jump from one column to another before you could focus on content. Section 508 says that you can only use a text-only version of a site if all else fails. After speaking to several blind people about this, they said they prefer the text-only version because they don't have to puddle-jump through a site designed for the sited/retrofitted for the blind because it is more linear. They prefer a smooth ride to jumping around, so I'm starting to disagree with the "You can't use a text-only version". Hmmm... Why not just design the main site linearly? Why not just design a site that is visually appealing, but linear? I realize designers (especially corporate designers) don't want to sacrifice visual appeal and layout for the sighted just because they have to also make it accessible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anyone; it's just that we find ourselves in a situation that does not have any easy answer, and I'm grappling with trying to find something that works.


Assistive Technology still has a way to go before it is up to speed. Right now, most of us are trying to do the best we can to make existing technology work with AT, but it doesn't work for all