E-mail List Archives
Thread: Question from client
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Glenda
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 2:06PM
Subject: Question from client
No previous message | Next message →
"2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the accesibility
issues of
our current website except those needed for people with cognotive
disabilities?"
I would to say NO, but I need to support my stand. Any suggestions? Off to
do some research.
I am finding this question somewhat disturbing, actually. Different site
versions for different disability sets?? What about universal design?
Cheers,
Glenda
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.eaglecom.bc.ca
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 2:54PM
Subject: Re: Question from client
← Previous message | Next message →
Glenda wrote:
> "2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the accesibility
> issues of
> our current website except those needed for people with cognotive
> disabilities?"
>
> I would to say NO, but I need to support my stand. Any suggestions? Off to
> do some research.
Obviously depends on the current site, but here's a few thoughts of what text only (assuming this refers to those automatically generated ones, using Betsie and co) doesn't solve (or solves in a very bad, limiting way):
- colour combinations which are indistinguishable to colour blind users - or do you expect those users to simply go and use the text-only version?
- audio/video/flash/pdf/etc files - text only doesn't magically make those accessible
- completely messed up markup and structure - tools like betsie and co can't magically turn a completely non-semantic, non-structural, non-validating piece of pseudo-html into a clean, semantic page
- if colour is used to convey information, this won't be solved by text only
- reliance on javascript - this would just be stripped out in the text-only output
...and many more.
Of course, this does not necessarily apply if the text-only version is created completely from scratch, rather than just being an automated conversion via Betsie and co...but then, what's the point? Why not make those changes to the "normal" site?
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 3:49PM
Subject: Re: Question from client
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Glenda wrote:
>> "2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the accesibility
>> issues of
>> our current website except those needed for people with cognotive
>> disabilities?"
A text only version is a serious accessibility _problem_, not a solution.
There's a note on this even in the WCAG 1.0 guidelines. Text only versions
mean serving second-class versions to second-class citizens. Even if some
text only version happens to be at the same level as the normal
version (updated as regularly etc.), users cannot possibly know this;
they assume that text only version has less content, is out of date,
is carelessly written and maintained (who'd bother for a 1 % of
customers?), etc., because they've observed such things.
The real question is what makes your client ask the question.
-- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Chris Price
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 4:20PM
Subject: Re: Question from client
← Previous message | Next message →
On 15/4/05 9:06 pm, "Glenda" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> "2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the accesibility
>> issues of
>> our current website except those needed for people with cognotive
>> disabilities?"
I cannot improve on the excellent responses from Jukka and Patrick but I
would hope that the client can't justify its question in the light of these
answers especially since its core objective is to empower people with
disabilities.
-- Chris Price
Choctaw
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.choctaw.co.uk
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Sat, Apr 16 2005 9:49AM
Subject: Re: Question from client
← Previous message | Next message →
Another thing to consider is that by offering a "text only" page, you
"ghetto" disabled users, and it smacks of "another version that might
not be as up-to-date".
Joe Clark's "Big, Stark and Chunky" on Alistapart.com had some user
testing examples, which showed that disabled users are actually not
likely to use "extra versions". It is a bit like offering wider seats
to obese people on a bus, yes, it is a necessity and actually a nice
gesture, but you also remind them of what they don't want to be
reminded of.
On 4/15/05, Chris Price < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> On 15/4/05 9:06 pm, "Glenda" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>
>>> >
>>> > "2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the accesibility
>>> > issues of
>>> > our current website except those needed for people with cognotive
>>> > disabilities?"
>
>>
>> I cannot improve on the excellent responses from Jukka and Patrick but I
>> would hope that the client can't justify its question in the light of these
>> answers especially since its core objective is to empower people with
>> disabilities.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Price
>>
>> Choctaw
>>
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> http://www.choctaw.co.uk
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>> Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
-- Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Jason Taylor
Date: Sat, Apr 16 2005 1:35PM
Subject: Re: Question from client
← Previous message | Next message →
Your question:
"2. Could we say that the text only version will solve all the
accessibility
issues of
our current website except those needed for people with cognitive
disabilities?"
Depends on the technology used to achieve this. Using the old "two site
method" or using old technology such as Betsie has created (justifiably) a
negative view of text-only - but more modern solutions area available to
create dynamic "specialized Interfaces" as a solution for improving
accessibility of content and applications.
This new technology group is known as Transcoders - they have the ability
to dynamically create different interfaces off the current web content for
different user groups as well as insert required content, helpful
navigation aids and bridge typical technology (javascript, flash) issues
between specialized browsers and the live web server. The result is an
optimized view of the site for that user group.
This new way of providing an "assistive friendly" view is supported in
part by Usability expects including Jakob Nielsen - in one of his alert
boxes he highlights the point that maybe one-fit-all coding is not the
ONLY solution and having the ability to provide an "Alternative Interfaces
for Accessibility" of a web site could help deal with many of the issues
that result in poorly supported user groups (assistive being one by PDA's
are another). See the alert box:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030407.html
As with any technology, some fit situations and goals better than others.
A full evaluation of the clients goals and resources available will have
significant impact on recommended solutions.
Regards
Jason Taylor
UsableNet Inc
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mon, Apr 18 2005 6:35AM
Subject: RE: Question from client on webaim
← Previous message | No next message
Jason Taylor wrote:
>> This new technology group is known as Transcoders - they have
>> the ability to dynamically create different interfaces off the current
>> web content for different user groups as well as insert required content,
helpful
>> navigation aids and bridge typical technology (javascript,
>> flash) issues between specialized browsers and the live web server. The
result is an
>> optimized view of the site for that user group.
...provided of course that the *content* that is being "Transcoded" (my
mental image is of a rube-goldberg / microwave-y contraption with gears and
a steam whistle on top) is useful and appropriate in the first place. The
old phase of "garbage in = garbage out" keeps ringing in my ears...
The basic problem with these types of "solutions" is that they are really
not solutions in the long term, they are band-aids... they give IT managers
a sense of "doing something" without actually addressing the root of the
problem.
I'm realistic, and having a university or corporate legacy site with
hundreds of thousands of poorly developed source material requires quick,
temporary responses; these tools may help bridge that gap. But I would
suggest that when this type of solution is employed, it be done so under two
provisions: a) all new content moving forward must specifically *not* need
to use this "transformer" type solution (in other words, stop producing the
crud that requires it), and b) that all legacy content which *must* remain
publicly facing be re-written to move it into the 21st century (<grin>).
I'm not saying toss the old legacy stuff, but archive it properly if it does
not receive the amount or regular traffic the more public pages do. Think
museum collections, or serious libraries: not everything is available to the
general public. Task the development department to achieve this goal in an
appropriate time frame, and mandate it so. Sitting back and thinking that
"the magic pill" has solved your problems is a false hope for all.
>>
>> This new way of providing an "assistive friendly" view is supported in
>> part by Usability expects including Jakob Nielsen - in one of
>> his alert
>> boxes he highlights the point that maybe one-fit-all coding is not the
>> ONLY solution and having the ability to provide an
>> "Alternative Interfaces
>> for Accessibility" of a web site could help deal with many of
>> the issues
>> that result in poorly supported user groups (assistive being
>> one by PDA's
>> are another). See the alert box:
>>
>> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030407.html
>>
April 7, 2003... A two year old article? C'mon - in internet time that's
ancient history...
Part of the "issue" is that Jacob still thinks in terms of "design", and not
development. Properly developed web content encompasses both visual design
and structural design, but keeps these concepts separate - CSS remember?
Properly designed/developed source material does not (should not) require
any further pre-processing from the provider, that falls to the end user.
Even Jacob says (in this article), "...all designs must offer the same
functionality and provide access to the same content." Can you be 100% sure
that your "transformer" is providing this? If the tool is not, is it really
worth the investment? I have yet to see a tool pass this test (but am
prepared to be enlightened).
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-267-1983 / 1-866-932-4878 (North America)