WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Web Analytics

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Apr 10, 2012 9:50AM

Ryan

You raise good points here (for one thing I have never understood the
privacy concerns of people, especially in the U.S., but that is a
completely separate thought and nothing necessarily to do with
accessibility).
The risk, to my mind, that specific detection of screen reader
technology can bring about, is still the customized behaviors of site
developers towards each specific screen reader.
I grant you that these are sometimes the only viable short-term
solutions (especially in the area you are working in), but longterm I
am worried that the responsibility of accessibility for a particular
screen reader moves from that SR developer to the website development
staff.
Users, after all, interact with a page through their screen reader and
their browser.
It is as much the SR vendors responsibility to implement standardized
behaviors, as it is the site developer to provide information in a
programatically decipherable manner.
With emergeing technologies of course this is difficult, since screen
readers typically have a new release every 6 to 12 months, moreover a
release that can be very pricy (except for NVDA), and out of reach for
a lot ofusers.
But, ultimately, screen reader vendors need to feel the heat, and have
the responsibility to adopt standards, and to consistently interpret
webpages that adhere to these standards. If the websites, instead,
start customizing the experience to a particular screen reader user,
longterm that responsibility may increasingly move to the site
developers themselves, and that would truly damage the prospect for
accessibility, which will most easily be realized through better
standarddization.
So from a longterm standpoint I am a bit worried about the customized
SR experience approach, though I perfectly agree with you, that I do
not really understand why detecting users' screen reading application
is valuable in certain cases, for customized instructions for instance
(many a time I wish I could provide relevant instructions to users of
a particular screen reader).
I could say a lot more about disabilities and opportunities, and the
apparent (to me anyway), lack of rational thinking in that regard, but
that would be entirely of-topic, and probably not overly Politically
Correct besides.
Cheers
-B

On 4/10/12, Ryan Hemphill < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> When I read the reason for not wanted to be identified as using an
> accessibility technology, I gave a big sigh yesterday.
>
> You can't hide the fact that you are a screen reader user. Anyone with any
> understanding of screen reader behaviors would be able to detect your
> technology almost immediately. Some of them are very straightforward.
>
> (1) Clicking on a hidden link/anchor/button within a page. While this is
> listed as an accessibility technique/practice, it's a red flag that you are
> a screen reader user. No one else would see it in the first place and
> there is definitely no one that would be able to click on it.
>
> (2) Tabbing a lot. One focus jump after another going all over the entire
> page (let along the entire site) unless it was a form would immediately
> give a high probability of the user leveraging a screen reader or some
> other accessibility software.
>
> (3) Tabbing + Click event. This one would be a very strong indicator. If
> the user was tabbing a lot and then clicked (via the simulated click event
> that screen readers all use), the probability that the user is navigating
> via screen reader is very very high. Why else would anyone tab through an
> entire site only to use a mouse click once they have found what they were
> looking for?
>
> (4) I can detect, at this time, whether you are using JAWS, NVDA or
> VoiceOver in a heartbeat. I have 2 methods I could use in JAWS, and might
> even be able to figure out the version of JAWS with a little bit of extra
> research. Given the information you have just provided (thank you for
> that), I will avoid releasing how I can do this, but suffice to say - it
> isn't hard once you really understand the behavioral differences from each
> other and keyboard/non-screen reader users as a whole.
>
> We need to revisit this issue. There is just no way you are going to be
> able to hide many accessibility technologies from any developer on the web.
> If someone has nefarious purpose for detection of your screen reader
> technology or wants to detect the likeliness that you are a keyboard only
> user that might have motor skill impairments, for example, you are not
> going to be able to stop them.
>
> Furthermore, you are creating a situation that makes it extraordinarily
> difficult to deal with the differences between screen readers. The
> compatibility issues that present themselves in rich internet applications
> already make it so that JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver are the only possible
> means to handle things like focus management because it is that complex to
> begin with. Add on the fact that they each handle it differently and you
> are really looking at a major break between the desired avoidance of
> detection and reality of making Rich Internet Apps work for these programs.
> Developers who are doing Rich Internet Apps need to know what you are
> using especially when the RIA becomes complex.
>
> In our current situation at my company, we are required by law to provide
> accessible solutions for screen reader users, but there is more than one
> Rich Internet App in our company that require knowledge of which (JAWS,
> NVDA or VoiceOver) screen reader is being used to insure failures
> (interaction or formatting) don't occur. There is too much going on in
> these apps for the SR software to handle it without some help as well. I
> could go on for at least an hour or two about how these situations come
> about and what we are doing to resolve them but mark my words, there is no
> question at all that we need to know what we're working with.
>
> I get why no one wants to be identified. No one wants their information
> broadcasted to companies that want to exploit their data. It is invasive
> and unsetting - I completely understand the objection.
>
> But it isn't going to allow screen reader technologies (or others for that
> matter) to maintain the pace of development that we are all witnessing even
> now. I even remember seeing a post about half a year ago by a Google
> employee that was stating how making some technologies accessible at this
> time was extraordinarily difficult. This is Google we are talking about, a
> company that hires super-geniuses to write their software - and they're
> saying they can't the target. Now granted, I'm sure that there are those
> among you that see this as an excuse or lack of knowledge on that person's
> part - but for a massive technology driven company to have an employee
> state publicly their doubts in creation of RIA accessibility - that's a
> very bad sign. And we aren't doing them or any other design dev teams any
> favors (or the user base it affects) by hiding the fact that you are a
> screen reader user or have some other a11y tech-specific need.
>
> If this post needs to move to a new discussion (probably not a bad idea) I
> would like to continue this conversation further with anyone that wishes to
> state their opinion. I am open to harsh criticism, so fire away, but I
> feel very strongly that this perspective is going to hold back
> accessible-friendly technology for the web in a critical and unfortunate
> way. Don't get me wrong, I care very much about doing the right thing, but
> as the assessment of a 15 year veteran in design/development, there is no
> way this is going to work in the long run - and I am not the only person
> that would tell you that.
>
> We need to be open to telling the dev teams what tech we're shooting for.
> A no-holds-barred approach to keep up with the pace we are seeing. It's
> not going to slow down and you can't predict what is coming up next. I am
> very unsettled and concerned by this issue.
>
>
> Ryan.
> > > >