WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility vs. Google and Microsoft Exchange


From: Kara Zirkle
Date: Jul 15, 2008 7:10AM

Hi Phil,

You make some good points, however using a basic HTML takes away functions
that the "normal" Gmail offers. However Microsoft Exchange and Exchange
Light (the accessible version) also has some of these same issues. However
I'm not looking at only the email portion. I'm also looking at the other
applications supported on the education version. Such as the live
collaboration piece, online storage, web page creation, etc. that varies
between Microsoft Exchange and Google. Have you had any experience with
these? I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has used these other features
that are used through the educational portion of these applications.


Kara Zirkle
IT Accessibility Coordinator
Assistive Technology Initiative
Thompson Hall RM 114 MS: 6A11
Fairfax Campus
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 703-993-9815
Fax: 703-993-4743

-----Original Message-----
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Phil Teare
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:37 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility vs. Google and Microsoft Exchange

Use the 'basic HTML' version of Gmail would be my simple advice.

I'm sighted but have reading difficulties. Exchanged is not dyslexia
friendly. At all. The usability of a site/app is effectively the biggest
access issue for those like myself, where 'working memory' is an issue.
We're a big group - and in the uk at least, pretected by the DDA.

I believe that Gmail 'basic HTML' is pretty good through a screen reader
now, too. But I have a lot less experience from that angle.

Just my take.

Phil Teare,
CTO & Chief Architect,
http://www.talklets.com from Textic Ltd.
(44) [0] 208 4452871

2008/7/14 Christian Heilmann < <EMAIL REMOVED> >:

> ~G~ wrote:
> > This is the major hurdle that WAI-ARIA is and will hopefully solve.
> > Creating accessibility solutions for the RIA's which include javascript
> > frameworks/applications such as what Google is doing.
> >
> >
> Yes and no. the Danger there is that ARIA becomes a silver bullet. While
> it is true that ARIA is there to bridge the gap between HTML and RIA and
> get asssistive technology support as a freebie it is not an excuse to
> build applications that assume your browser can do things instead of
> testing for them.
> > I would say that that the js framework that supports ARIA more complete,
> > will be the one to get behind, support and work with in creating
> accessible
> > RIA solutions.
> >
> Yes, the bigger issue is however the browser support. As long as we are
> stuck with IE6, ARIA is not a solution. We need to clean out all the
> things that are dependent on IE6, but these are systems that were built
> with a 5 year support contract and a big IT company name and not by
> developers who appreciate the diversity of the web.
> If you are looking for a framework that does a great job implementing
> ARIA, check out Dojo.