WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Check Images

for

From: Terrence Wood
Date: Jan 18, 2005 12:28PM

Mike, (missed the start of this thread, but) are we talking about
internet banking here? If the public aren't the intended consumers of
the service then who is? Also, it is well known that the worst usability
is found on intranet or other such 'non-public' systems - not addressing
usability and accessibility issues simply because it is not 'public' is
a cop out IMO. It really doesn't take that much more effort, just a
change in attitude. Rather than seeing it as an added extra, why not
make accessibility and usability part of standard practice? Same logic
as "why use tables for layout when there are better tools for the job?".

Back to banking. I know of three banking applications. What is common
about them all is that they use forms. None of the forms come anywhere
close to addressing usability and accessibility issues in that they lack
correct and useful label/control pairs. They lack titles on form
controls. They use images for submit buttons, preventing resizing button
text. So, immediate simply accessibility fixes for three banks I know of
are:

1. Use text on submit buttons instead of images.
2. Add labels and associate them with form controls.
3. Use titles on form elements.

Another example: one of these banking applications has credit card entry
boxes split into groups of 4 numbers with no warning that tabbing is
required to enter the entire number. In this case a blind user has to
either: submit an incorrect form to (hopefully) generate an error to get
instruction if they don't 'get' that the card number entry is split over
multiple text fields; or, read the entire form first before submitting.


Terrence Wood.



michael.brockington wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mburks952 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
>>Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
>>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>>Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>>
>>I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible?
>
>
>
> I don't see any reason why they would need to: this isn't meant to be a
> public application, and since it is just virtualising a process which already
> demands a sighted user I don't see that there is any additional burden.
>
> Mike