WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Web Analytics

for

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Apr 10, 2012 12:14PM

Thanks for bringing up the issue around employment - I can definitely
appreciate this as a potential example where screen reader detection would
be a problem. As I mentioned, it is almost impossible to avoid SR
detection, but I get why this is a concern.

Ryan



On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Will Grignon < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> 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>
>
> > > >



--



Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.