WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Web Analytics

for

From: Will Grignon
Date: Apr 10, 2012 12:05PM

As a blind user, I would think that the issue of forced identification can
be quite important in the employment arena, where disabled applicants, who
are required to do things like fill out online applications might want to
prevent potential employers from knowing they are disabled. Since, The
decision when/if to disclose is a very personal one and giving potential
employers the ability to determine which applicants are using AT might give
rise to fears that these employers are (either consciously or subliminally)
using this capability to "weed out" disabled candidates.

Although, I suppose that potential employers can counter that, while the ADA
does not require a disabled applicant to disclose a disability at the
application stage (or even the interview stage) of the employment process,
disabled applicants are required to notify potential employers of a
disability if that disabled applicant is requesting reasonable
accommodations in order to complete the application process.

However, I can imagine that such disabled applicants could make a case that
AT is a passive technological accommodation that does not require express
disclosure of a disability to the employer and therefore should not
incorporate the employer's ability to identify applicants who use such AT
functionality.

An interesting question would arise if the potential employer's web-based
employment processes either malfunction or do not contain adequately
accessible functionality, and the disabled applicant is then forced to
contact the potential employer and, compelled against her private wishes,
identify herself as disabled and in need of reasonable accommodation AT...

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Tim Harshbarger
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:38 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web Analytics

Jared makes good points. I will try to make another good point.

One of the big issues with this approach isn't technical but social. People
with disabilities have experienced and do experience discrimination based on
their disability. One thing people with disabilities seem to prize on the
internet is having the opportunity to interact with other people and
organizations without their disability becoming known. While it might be
hard to believe in this day and age, interactions with organizations and
other people can be qualitatively different if disability isn't one of the
factors.
Another factor in this attitude might be too many well intentioned people
with little understanding. Basically, this approach is like saying "trust
me, I know exactly what you need." I expect we all here are in a better
position to understand what the user might need or want--but I expect
everyone on this list with a disability has stories about well-intentioned
people who felt they should make a decision on behalf of a person with a
disability--and things ended up in disaster. But I am just guessing about
this part.

So, the population we want to design user interfaces for is going to be
somewhat resistant to us trying to determine if they have a disability and
then prescribing their user experience for them based on that information.
I even suspect that most of them would be more comfortable answering a
question like "Do you want white text on a black background?" rather than
"Are you a person with a visual impairment?"--not to mention it probably
will get more answers since not all people we might define as having a
disability define themselves as having a disability.

I do realize that when we design user interfaces, we have to make decisions
based on what we think the users might need or want. I just think that
people with disabilities would see a big difference between universal design
and AT sniffing.

That is just my two cents worth--or the denomination of your own choosing.

Tim


I definitely understand the desire of some of the people in this community
to want that information about users--we all want to be able to give people
the best user experience we possibly can design. With this approach, I
think the problem we run into is people with disabilities have had a lot of
bad experiences with that identification approach. Screen reader only
pages, anyone?



-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Ryan Hemphill
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:10 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web Analytics

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.
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>