WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Resize text buttons

for

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Jan 12, 2009 12:05PM

On 8/1/09 16:12, Randall Pope wrote:
> Posting a simple instruction on using the browser setting would be an ideal
> world but in reality that would not work for those who cannot understand
> simple technical instruction, not to mention the visual language issues such
> as sign language. I have been getting requests for sign language videos to
> interpret the content of the page which is their native language.

If you are catering to non-technical users, videos are probably a key
educational tool.

If you are catering to users who need sign language interpretation of
page content, then a page describing how to use their browser should
also be sign language interpreted.

For me, the key difference is that with sizing widgets, 1) users must
relearn the widgets for every site and 2) the technique is useless for
the vast majority of the web that provides no such widgets, effectively
locking such users into an inconsistent accessibility ghetto.

Is it harder to learn how to use browser widgets than site widgets? The
default user interface on browsers hides font size and color features
away. But assuming good enough help from content producers, software
vendors, friends, and family, I think the difference is easily
exaggerated. In any case, I think giving people access to the wider web
is well worth helping them over the initial learning curve.

Pretty much the only place I would provide a site widget would be on a
site that explained how to use your browser's own interface.

Does this mean that every site should be writing its own version of the
BBC's My Web, My Way? I don't think that would be good for users; it
certainly wouldn't be practical. What would be great is if W3C hosted a
centralized resource, along the lines of My Web, My Way, and the rest of
the web just linked to that.

> Being a low vision DeafBlind person myself, I would rather have the choice
> of page size and color background on the webpage instead of using the
> browser. Often the browser choice does not work for me. A good example is
> Facebook at http://m.facebook.com which does a better job than the Foxfire's
> browser "no style" setting.

Hmm. Some scattered thoughts:

* m.facebook.com is a radical reimagining of the site for mobile devices
(hence the "m") rather than a straight forward reskinning with a
different font size or color scheme, so I don't think it's really an
example of the sort of widgets the thread is talking about.

* If all you want to do is enforce your own colors and zoom/font-size,
you might be better off setting those directly (
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Accessibility ) rather than using
"No Styles".

* I think Firefox's implementation of "No Styles" is problematic as an
accessibility feature anyway, since it ignores the presentational width
and height attributes of objects and iframes and just renders them all
the same size, messing up the presentation of many videos and
transcludes. Facebook is just one example of a site badly affected by
this implementation (if you switch to "No Styles" on the homepage, the
first thing in the page is a big empty iframe and the second thing is an
oversized Flash embed). In terms of built-in alternate views, Opera's
views offer more choice and generally seem to work better than
Firefox's, in my experience.

* It's just no use comparing sites that provide site widgets with sites
that haven't even tried to function with varying zooms/font
sizes/colors. A fairer comparison is with sites that have attempted to
flex with browser configuration. Granted, if your site doesn't flex with
browser configuration, then providing site-specific UI is better than
nothing. But that's a repair measure.

* Facebook isn't exactly an example of best practice for markup or
styling! For example, if you increase the text size on your homepage,
the main content area overlays the top menu bar because the top menu bar
has been absolutely positioned (i.e. assumptions have been made about
how much vertical space it will require - assumptions based on a fixed
font size). They also have a tendency to use DIV elements as style hooks
where SPAN might be more appropriate, producing any overly "blocky" page
with default browser styles.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis