E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)

From: Bryce.Fields
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 7:57AM
Subject: Coding for Standards--comments please
No previous message | Next message →

I have a question and am interested in hearing everyone's comments. The
burden of making a site accessible has always been placed with the
developer. However, if I build a site to conform with a published known set
of open standards that, if followed by both myself and browser manufacturers
would produce accessible sites, why is the burden on me when the browser
technology fails to adhere to standards? If I am a carpenter, and I build
an access ramp to a building a specified standard width, is it my
responsibility if someone tries to use a wheelchair that is wider than that
standard?

And before anyone thinks this is a rant against a particular visual browser
manufacturer, it's not. The question came to me while researching aural
browsers and screen readers. Is it our fault their technology is
substandard?

Bryce Fields
Web Developer

Kentucky Virtual University
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education
http://www.kyvu.org/ <http://www.kyvu.org/>; - http://www.cpe.ky.gov/
<http://www.cpe.ky.gov/>;

1-502-573-5114 ext 132

"Do or do not. There is no try." -- Yoda


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: David R. Stong
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 8:23AM
Subject: Re: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

>Previously Bryce wrote: why is the burden on me when the browser
>technology fails to adhere to standards? If I am a carpenter, and I build
>an access ramp to a building a specified standard width, is it my
>responsibility if someone tries to use a wheelchair that is wider than that
>standard?


In keeping with your analogy, I'd have to ask : if you were a
carpenter and were to build an access ramp meeting local code, but
the concrete, nails and wood supplied were all substandard such that
the ramp was unusable, wouldn't you (as a reputable career conscious
carpenter) do what you could to correct the situation so as to avoid
an accidental injury?

Most arguments about the evil browser seem to me to be like this- you
know there's a problem, you have the ability to make it work even
though you aren't responsible for the browser code- so why wouldn't
you? Then do what you can to inform and correct the "supplier"


--
David R. Stong
Microcomputer Information Specialist (Graphic Designer),
Education Technology Services, a unit of
Teaching and Learning with Technology
Information Technology Services
The Pennsylvania State University
Phone 8148651843

212 Rider Building II
227 W Beaver Avenue
State College, PA 16801-4819

Working for Universal Design: http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/accessibility


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Mike Stenhouse
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 8:34AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Bryce

<snip>
And before anyone thinks this is a rant against a particular visual
browser manufacturer, it's not. The question came to me while
researching aural browsers and screen readers. Is it our fault their
technology is substandard?
</snip>

As I see it, our job as developers is to produce web sites that people
can use. The standards are a means to that end, not an end in
themselves. The idea is that if we code to standards, new browsers of
all kinds will have the same specification to build from and so will be
able to use our sites. [I know that's a bit idealistic but I'll wait to
be proved wrong.]

So web standards are the future but we still have to cater for the
present to the best of our ability, hence the time spent building
support for sub-standard browsers. Besides, the WAI and RNIB guidelines
don't require you to support specific screenreader browsers (for
example), but rather the standards that give screenreaders the best shot
at interpreting your web pages.

It's not our fault that the technology is sub-standard but if it
bothered me too much I'd be a carpenter!

Cheers

Mike
Web developer/designer
www.donotremove.co.uk



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Keith Patton
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 8:47AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi,
Yep, it's a trade off.

I try and do things in 2 stages...

1. code to web standards (XHTML 1/HTML 4)
2. employ hacks/workarounds for backwards-compatibility and/or to overcome
inconsistent implementation of standards in target browsers

So you have future-proof code with some messiness in your style sheets to
cater for the messiness of some browsers standards implementations of lack
thereof!

Keith Patton

Ethical Media
www.ethicalmedia.com

From: Bryce.Fields
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 9:05AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

***David Strong wrote:
In keeping with your analogy, I'd have to ask : if you were a
carpenter and were to build an access ramp meeting local code, but
the concrete, nails and wood supplied were all substandard such that
the ramp was unusable, wouldn't you (as a reputable career conscious
carpenter) do what you could to correct the situation so as to avoid
an accidental injury?
***

That's not my premise. My premise is that the carpenter has built
everything correctly and the materials are not substandard. Access can be
easily granted to machinery that recognize those standards and are built to
comply. But what if a wheelchair manufacturer chooses to ignore the
standards and build a chair that is too wide for the ramp? Who's
responsible for the inaccessibility? Surely we wouldn't fault the carpenter
in this case.

I think the same could and should apply to web developers. There is a set
of known, recognized standards, that if we follow, should allow access to
everyone. Why is it then our fault if the manufacturers' of assistive
technologies don't adhere to those standards.

Let's assume that I build Site X to the perfect site when it comes to
standards conformance (hey...it's only theoretical...let me dream). Anyone
showing up at the "doorstep" of Site X with assistive technology that
recognizes the standards and adheres to them can surf on in and have the
same exerience as a non-challenged individual. Now, suppose someone
attempts to access the site using an assistive technology that does not
fully support standards. Isn't this the equivalent of trying to use a
perfectly good and LEGAL access ramp with a wheelchair that is too wide?

It just seems to me that the focus in the battle to build accessible sites
is on the wrong group. We have the tools at our disposal to build it right.
I'm really curious as to legally and morally, shouldn't that be enough to
absolve me of burden? Why doesn't the LEGAL and moral burden then fall on
the assistive technology manufacturers if their product fails to produce the
results specified by the standards?

Bryce Fields
Web Developer

Kentucky Virtual University
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education
http://www.kyvu.org/ - http://www.cpe.ky.gov/

1-502-573-5114 ext 132

"Do or do not. There is no try." -- Yoda

From: Hoffman, David
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 9:08AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

A very good question! My personal opinion is that you are both correct and
incorrect:

1) It would be wonderful if developers could just design to standards and
leave the rest up to the assistive technology. Various developers and
accessibility tool vendors have told me just that: they develop or test to
standards, not specific assistive technologies. The truth is that it just
does not work -- and not merely because of assistive technology
shortcomings. The standards are too limited and incomplete. And sometimes
the development technology is simply lacking the necessary features as well.
Merely coding to standards will not result in software that is truly
accessible. I agree with the ideal, but it is not (yet) a reality.

2) You make a very good point about assistive technology shortcomings. I
believe that if an issue is caused by an assistive technology shortcoming,
the application should not be faulted or found to be not compliant with
Section 508. In fact, I believe that holding developers responsible for
issues that they did not create and have no way to fix actually hurts the
cause of achieving more accessible software. Developers become legitimately
frustrated and less cooperative. Legalities not withstanding, it does hurt
the cause. Instead, the assistive technology vendor must be notified and
required to correct the shortcomings.

3) That said, developers should be willing to implement reasonable
workarounds for shortcomings when necessary and practical. When we stop
holding them responsible for issues that they did not create and have no way
to fix, they are likely to be more willing and flexible about creating these
workarounds.

The reason why I believe that an application can be considered Section 508
compliant even if it is affected by assistive technology shortcomings is
because Section 508 Subpart B repeatedly requires the availability of
information to assistive technology, rather than the performance of
assistive technology. Testing with assistive technology can demonstrate this
availability, or the potential lack of availability. It cannot necessarily
prove lack of availability. Consider these Section 508 excerpts:

* The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology
can track focus and focus changes. --

From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 9:23AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | Next message →

Bryce wrote:

> It just seems to me that the focus in the battle to build
> accessible sites
> is on the wrong group. We have the tools at our disposal to
> build it right.
> I'm really curious as to legally and morally, shouldn't that
> be enough to
> absolve me of burden? Why doesn't the LEGAL and moral burden
> then fall on
> the assistive technology manufacturers if their product fails
> to produce the
> results specified by the standards?

While I agree with your frustrations, I don't entirely agree with your above
statement. The tools (ie code) to build accessible web sites have been with
us for a while (HTML4 or even earlier) and many of us (and those who are not
part of this group) have not always used all of the techniques and code
properly - but now we are. Yes, there is a focus at the W3C.org site
regarding coding techniques but I don't think any of us belong to a company
that manufactures accessibility user-agents and I know that I haven't looked
at the WAI pages that deal with the development of user agents. Yes, there
should be (and maybe there are) standards for screen-readers and
screen-readers should be asked to follow them.

However, some of the problems we deal with may in fact be version-related:
in a few years JAWS 12.2 may be fully compliant but JAWS 4 isn't. I think
that if WebStandards.org was at least partially responsible for bringing
standards more to the forefront, perhaps ScreenReaderStandards.org should be
created to do the same sort of thing.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: David R. Stong
Date: Wed, Mar 17 2004 9:43AM
Subject: RE: Coding for Standards--comments please
← Previous message | No next message

Bryce wrote:
>That's not my premise... There is a set
>of known, recognized standards, that if we follow, should allow access to
>everyone. Why is it then our fault if the manufacturers' of assistive
>technologies don't adhere to those standards. Why doesn't the LEGAL
>and moral burden then fall on
>the assistive technology manufacturers if their product fails to produce the
>results specified by the standards?


I do see your point Bryce, and that of David Hoffman. I concede that
if you do everything to standard and some people are still excluded
it's very frustrating.

There are too many questions, beginning with "which standards?" and
short comings that Julian points out, that a designer such as
myself, anyway, has to decide which battle to fight and which to only
observe. In the end, I can't sit by and say "it's somebody else's
fault/problem" if I have the skill, talent, or insight to make the
site not only compliant, but accessible.

I am glad to hear there are warriors who want to take on Microsoft,
Freedom Scientific and GW Micro. I really admire the vision. I think
though that the assistive technology manufacturers do feel a
responsibility (and financial need) and are working to improve their
products in the ways you mention. I guess I'm not so sure that
browser manufacturers and designers are as concerned with this same
specific field.
--
David R. Stong
Microcomputer Information Specialist (Graphic Designer),
Education Technology Services, a unit of
Teaching and Learning with Technology
Information Technology Services
The Pennsylvania State University
Phone 8148651843

212 Rider Building II
227 W Beaver Avenue
State College, PA 16801-4819

Working for Universal Design: http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/accessibility

Download Penn State's visual identity marks:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/drs18/mark.html


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/