E-mail List Archives
Thread: Web accessibility and usability
Number of posts in this thread: 30 (In chronological order)
From: Annmarie L Gemma
Date: Sat, Oct 09 2004 1:32PM
Subject: Web accessibility and usability
No previous message | Next message →
Hello All,
I am in the early stages of a master's thesis. The topic that I would like to explore is how (whether) web accessibility promotes usability by non-disabled users. In other words, I am interested in making a case for how accessibility benefits more than the disabled segment of a web site's customer base.
For the purposes of a literature survey, I was wondering if anyone might be aware of previous studies that have been completed for this topic. In addition, all opinions are most welcome and very much appreciated. It would be helpful to know in advance whether a study on this topic would be useful to the web accessibility community.
Thank you for your time...
Sincerely,
Annmarie Gemma
Master's Candidate in Management & Systems
New York University
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sat, Oct 09 2004 1:42PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
alg230 wrote:
> For the purposes of a literature survey, I was wondering if anyone
might be aware of previous studies that have been completed for this
topic. In addition, all opinions are most welcome and very much
appreciated. It would be helpful to know in advance whether a study on
this topic would be useful to the web accessibility community.
Microsoft recently made available two studies on accessibility
technology. Part of the findings seems to suggest that any access
improvements benefit a much wider range than "simply" users with
disabilities.
As for the usefulness of such a study, I'd say yes...anything that can
help convince decision makers to invest in accessibility would be a good
thing.
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Glenda
Date: Sat, Oct 09 2004 1:54PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Annmarie,
As a starting point see
http://www.workinfonet.bc.ca/webaccessguides/accessguide/why.htm for some
ways Web accessibility benefits others.
Good luck.
Cheers,
Glenda
From: Andrew Arch
Date: Sun, Oct 10 2004 3:34PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Annmarie,
Don't know of any formal studies (apart from the Microsoft/Forrester one),
but many people have written articles on this topic. E.g.:
1.
www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/web-accessib
ility-usability.shtml
2. www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html
3. http://www.uiaccess.com/upa2000a.html
4. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/arch/index.html
5. http://www.frontend.com/accessibility_paper.html#Usability
Andrew
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Manager Online Accessibility Consulting
Accessible Information Solutions, NILS
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565
http://www.nils.org.au/ | http://www.it-test.com.au/ |
http://www.ozewai.org/
Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/
National Information & Library Service, Australia
A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 4:18AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> As for the usefulness of such a study, I'd say yes...anything that can
> help convince decision makers to invest in accessibility would be a good > thing.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions there - I don't mean to be
awkward, but occasionaly adding accessibility has meant (for me) sacrificing
usability a little, and I suspect that any un-biased report would have to say
the same thing. (Does anyone think that the previously mentioned Microsoft
Report was un-biased? Is any MS Report ever unbiased?)
The most obvious example that I can think of was a recent discussion about
providing documents in multiple formats. The best way of doing this in a
visual browser is to do:
Extremely_long_document_title: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
Official_Reports_Always_Have_long_names: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
But this conflicts with accessibility since all of the links have the same
name. I don't know which solutions people use, but (by definition) any
accessible solution will be less usable.
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Rama
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 4:27AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
dear friends
i am a new member in this group.
my point of joining this group is quite simple since my reseach areas of
intrest is web usability.
so can any one of you could suggest me a good concrete area inorder to
persuade my research (PHD)
looking farward for all your suggessions
thanks
rama
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael.brockington"
To: "WebAIM Discussion List"
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
>
> > As for the usefulness of such a study, I'd say yes...anything that can
> > help convince decision makers to invest in accessibility would be a good
> thing.
>
> I think that you are jumping to conclusions there - I don't mean to be
> awkward, but occasionaly adding accessibility has meant (for me)
sacrificing
> usability a little, and I suspect that any un-biased report would have to
say
> the same thing. (Does anyone think that the previously mentioned Microsoft
> Report was un-biased? Is any MS Report ever unbiased?)
> The most obvious example that I can think of was a recent discussion about
> providing documents in multiple formats. The best way of doing this in a
> visual browser is to do:
>
> Extremely_long_document_title: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
> Official_Reports_Always_Have_long_names: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
>
> But this conflicts with accessibility since all of the links have the same
> name. I don't know which solutions people use, but (by definition) any
> accessible solution will be less usable.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
> Thank you
>
> Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>
>
From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 4:30AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> The most obvious example that I can think of was a recent discussion about
> providing documents in multiple formats. The best way of doing this in a
> visual browser is to do:
>
> Extremely_long_document_title: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
> Official_Reports_Always_Have_long_names: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
>
> But this conflicts with accessibility since all of the links have the same
> name. I don't know which solutions people use, but (by definition) any
> accessible solution will be less usable.
What about using an icon with an appropriate ALT attribute stating "PDF
format of ..." and "Word format of".
It is a repetition, but not visually. Or the document name as a label and
a select box offering the different formats followed by a download button
(this also allows for easy backend tracking).
Accessibility only interferes with usability when the usability
enhancements commit the cardinal sin: Assuming the users environment.
--
Chris Heilmann
http://icant.co.uk/ | http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 6:17AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
I do not think you can make a general statement that
accessibility means poorer usability.
What about using markup that allows content to reflow to fit
the width of a screen as text size, window width or pixel
density changes. This is clearly an advantage to both
usability and accessibility. People with disabilities can
adjust fonts size and foreground and background colors easier,
and people without disabilities with high resolution monitors
can adjust text to be readible on their high resolution
screen. This seems like a win-win situation for all users and
usability increases because users can adjust content to meet
their needs or hardware characteristics.
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:22:06 +0100
>From: "michael.brockington"
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List"
>
>
>> As for the usefulness of such a study, I'd say
yes...anything that can
>> help convince decision makers to invest in accessibility
would be a good > thing.
>
>I think that you are jumping to conclusions there - I don't
mean to be
>awkward, but occasionaly adding accessibility has meant (for
me) sacrificing
>usability a little, and I suspect that any un-biased report
would have to say
>the same thing. (Does anyone think that the previously
mentioned Microsoft
>Report was un-biased? Is any MS Report ever unbiased?)
>The most obvious example that I can think of was a recent
discussion about
>providing documents in multiple formats. The best way of
doing this in a
>visual browser is to do:
>
>Extremely_long_document_title: (Word Format) (PDF Format)
>Official_Reports_Always_Have_long_names: (Word Format) (PDF
Format)
>
>But this conflicts with accessibility since all of the links
have the same
>name. I don't know which solutions people use, but (by
definition) any
>accessible solution will be less usable.
>
>Mike
>
>
>********************************************************************
>
>This email may contain information which is privileged or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it
without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing
its contents to any other person
>Thank you
>
>Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
>
>********************************************************************
>
>----
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820
Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 8:10AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: jongund [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>
> I do not think you can make a general statement that
> accessibility means poorer usability.
>
Hold on a minute - that is nothing like what I said! Almost the reverse, in
fact. What I said was that 'occasionaly' there was a conflict.
In other words, I don't think that you can say that accessibility means
_better_ usability.
Sometimes we have to drop the bells and whistles off a site to remain
accessible. Given enough time, most things can be worked around, but none of
us ever have enough time, so some things remain un-implemented. An obvious
parallel is the WCAG advice regarding ALT/TITLE atributes - having them alone
is not enough - they must be meaningful. I have seen many sites recently
sporting various accessibility logos, where it is impossible to find your way
around: if the Author had spent less time running pages through Bobby et al
the site might have had useful navigation.
On a technical note, the levels of interactivity that DHTML brought us is
anathema to accessibility. For example my understanding is that date-pickers
are a no-no for accessibility, so we have to take a step backward in
useability, since they might confuse some users.
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Annmarie L Gemma
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 9:52AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Mike, Jon, Chris, Andrea, Glenda, and Patrick,
I want to thank you all for your ideas. I am reviewing your postings and the suggested articles, and will likely have questions if you don't mind, once I have a better handle on the topic.
Thanks for your feedback....
Annmarie
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael.brockington"
Date: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:13 am
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
>
>
> > From: jongund [ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >
> > I do not think you can make a general statement that
> > accessibility means poorer usability.
> >
>
> Hold on a minute - that is nothing like what I said! Almost the
> reverse, in
> fact. What I said was that 'occasionaly' there was a conflict.
> In other words, I don't think that you can say that accessibility
> means_better_ usability.
> Sometimes we have to drop the bells and whistles off a site to remain
> accessible. Given enough time, most things can be worked around,
> but none of
> us ever have enough time, so some things remain un-implemented. An
> obviousparallel is the WCAG advice regarding ALT/TITLE atributes -
> having them alone
> is not enough - they must be meaningful. I have seen many sites
> recentlysporting various accessibility logos, where it is
> impossible to find your way
> around: if the Author had spent less time running pages through
> Bobby et al
> the site might have had useful navigation.
> On a technical note, the levels of interactivity that DHTML
> brought us is
> anathema to accessibility. For example my understanding is that
> date-pickers
> are a no-no for accessibility, so we have to take a step backward in
> useability, since they might confuse some users.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> This email may contain information which is privileged or
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete it without
> reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents
> to any other person
> Thank you
>
> Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
From: Annmarie L Gemma
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
My apologies... I meant Andrew, not Andrea
----- Original Message -----
From: alg230
Date: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:56 am
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
>
> Mike, Jon, Chris, Andrea, Glenda, and Patrick,
>
> I want to thank you all for your ideas. I am reviewing your
> postings and the suggested articles, and will likely have
> questions if you don't mind, once I have a better handle on the topic.
>
> Thanks for your feedback....
> Annmarie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael.brockington"
> Date: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:13 am
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
>
> >
> >
> > > From: jongund [ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > >
> > > I do not think you can make a general statement that
> > > accessibility means poorer usability.
> > >
> >
> > Hold on a minute - that is nothing like what I said! Almost the
> > reverse, in
> > fact. What I said was that 'occasionaly' there was a conflict.
> > In other words, I don't think that you can say that
> accessibility
> > means_better_ usability.
> > Sometimes we have to drop the bells and whistles off a site to
> remain> accessible. Given enough time, most things can be worked
> around,
> > but none of
> > us ever have enough time, so some things remain un-implemented.
> An
> > obviousparallel is the WCAG advice regarding ALT/TITLE atributes
> -
> > having them alone
> > is not enough - they must be meaningful. I have seen many sites
> > recentlysporting various accessibility logos, where it is
> > impossible to find your way
> > around: if the Author had spent less time running pages through
> > Bobby et al
> > the site might have had useful navigation.
> > On a technical note, the levels of interactivity that DHTML
> > brought us is
> > anathema to accessibility. For example my understanding is that
> > date-pickers
> > are a no-no for accessibility, so we have to take a step
> backward in
> > useability, since they might confuse some users.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> >
> > This email may contain information which is privileged or
> > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> email,
> > please notify the sender immediately and delete it without
> > reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents
> > to any other person
> > Thank you
> >
> > Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> >
> > ----
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> >
> >
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 10:13AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> On a technical note, the levels of interactivity that DHTML brought us is
> anathema to accessibility. For example my understanding is that
> date-pickers
> are a no-no for accessibility, so we have to take a step backward in
> useability, since they might confuse some users.
Badly implemented date pickers, yes. However you _can_ develop a date
picker that only gets applied when and if DHTML is possible. I explained
the ideas how to do that in my self-training course for unobtrusive
Javascript[1]. You do not need to cut down on usability enhancements, as
long as you check if they can be used and, in some cases, you allow the
user to enable or disable them.
[1] http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/chapter3.html
--
Chris Heilmann
http://icant.co.uk/ | http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 11:00AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> Badly implemented date pickers, yes. However you _can_
> develop a date picker that only gets applied when and if
> DHTML is possible. I explained the ideas how to do that...
Unfortunatly, only applying an effect when it is _possible_ is barely related
at all to when it is wanted. By defenition, most DHTML only gets deployed on
clients that can handle it. The problem is the extra layer of a screen-reader
on top of IE (or whatever).
> You do
> not need to cut down on usability enhancements, as long as
> you check if they can be used and, in some cases, you allow
> the user to enable or disable them.
I love the 'in some cases bit'! When do you not allow the user to disable
something?
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 11:11AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
>
>> Badly implemented date pickers, yes. However you _can_
>> develop a date picker that only gets applied when and if
>> DHTML is possible. I explained the ideas how to do that...
>
> Unfortunatly, only applying an effect when it is _possible_ is barely
> related
> at all to when it is wanted. By defenition, most DHTML only gets deployed
> on
> clients that can handle it. The problem is the extra layer of a
> screen-reader
> on top of IE (or whatever).
AFAIR all screen readers (except for the linux ones of course) need IE as
their engine, but they don't apply scripts that add additional HTML via
DOM. If someone has other information, that'll be great to know.
>> You do
>> not need to cut down on usability enhancements, as long as
>> you check if they can be used and, in some cases, you allow
>> the user to enable or disable them.
>
> I love the 'in some cases bit'! When do you not allow the user to disable
> something?
The idea was that even users with perfectly able browsers might not want a
special effect or help. Then you can offer an extra mean of turning those
off (An example would be a page that adds skip links but allows users to
get rid of them, or a page that allows the user to set a fixed size on the
font).
--
Chris Heilmann
http://icant.co.uk/ | http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Oct 11 2004 11:30AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
lists38 wrote:
> AFAIR all screen readers (except for the linux ones of course) need IE as
> their engine, but they don't apply scripts that add additional HTML via
> DOM. If someone has other information, that'll be great to know.
And from what I remember (speaking of first hand experience with JAWS,
so can't vouch for any other screenreaders), whether or not the
screenreader is present does not stop the DOM-changing javascript to be
executed in IE (it runs as it normally would), but the screenreader
itself only becomes aware of it if the changes were a result of user
interaction (activating a link, putting the focus on an element, etc)
Found this document a while ago, not sure if it still applies to the
very latest version (never mind the behaviour of other screenreaders):
"Q: How can I expect JAWS to handle JavaScript on my Web page?
A: JAWS will work correctly with JavaScript if:
* The scripts are activated by clicking a link or clickable item and the
script dynamically updates the HTML source.
* The scripts do not update the page without user intervention."
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: michael.brockington
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 3:39AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> "Q: How can I expect JAWS to handle JavaScript on my Web page?
>
> A: JAWS will work correctly with JavaScript if:
>
> * The scripts are activated by clicking a link or clickable
> item and the
> script dynamically updates the HTML source.
Can anyone expand a little on what the second part of this statement means?
The clickable part is simple, but _nothing_ can affect the original source
code, so what does it mean?
And is this the same for all screen-readers?
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 5:56AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> ...
> Can anyone expand a little on what the second part of this
> statement means?
> The clickable part is simple, but _nothing_ can affect the
> original source
> code, so what does it mean?
It doesn't refer to the original source code (as in the source stored on the server), but the source as processed (internally) by the browser. When doing DOM based javascripting, the scripts have the power to add, remove, change any node in the document object model. Effectively, you can generate new elements, fill in new content, completely delete elements, etc. These changes affect the (internal) source of the HTML document as kept by the browser (client side).
A fairly trivial example of this would be my little "show outline" experiment : starting from a document, it creates a completely new html document in memory, pops in any headings it finds in the original document, then replaces the active document the browser uses with the one it just created from scratch. These are all javascript changes that affect the (internally used) source. If you do a "view source" after the javascript has been processed, you'll still see the original HTML. However, with something like the AIS web accessibility toolbar you actually get the option of viewing the "generated source", which will then show you the bare-bones new document the script generated.
Hope this made some kind of sense. Sorry for the lengthy (and possibly a bit circular) discussion on this...
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: michael.brockington
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 6:45AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: p.h.lauke [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > ...
> > Can anyone expand a little on what the second part of this
> > statement means?
> > The clickable part is simple, but _nothing_ can affect the
> > original source
> > code, so what does it mean?
>
> It doesn't refer to the original source code (as in the
> source stored on the server), but the source as processed
> (internally) by the browser. When doing DOM based
> javascripting, the scripts have the power to add, remove,
> change any node in the document object model. Effectively,
> you can generate new elements, fill in new content,
> completely delete elements, etc. These changes affect the
> (internal) source of the HTML document as kept by the browser
> (client side).
>
(I obviously need to do a little work on my communication skills, since
no-one ever seems to understand what I am trying to say on this forum.)
Thanks for the explanation of DOM-based scripting - but that wasn't what I
wanted to know. Most scripting is currently done via simpler methods, eg
showing/hiding s that already exist in the source code, image
roll-overs, modifying form fields etc. Which, if any of these operations are
currently safe, and which aren't? If a form field has a default value, then
even the latter could be construed as a modification to the source.
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 7:01AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> ...
> Which, if any of these
> operations are
> currently safe, and which aren't?
If I understand the JAWS documentation correctly, any javascript modification (be it DOM based, old-school document.writes, switching styles, etc) should be safe as long as they're bound to a user interaction (e.g. onfocus/onblur, as opposed to things like scripts activated via a timer, or onload)
Sorry for the - maybe a tad patronising - rant about DOM javascript ;)
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 7:10AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't know for certain but I question whether Patrick's statement is
correct (generally). If a mouse pointer (or tab key) moves to/over a
particular link and JS then makes additional information available via
changing display:none to display:block, in another part of the screen (for
example, the link is in the left navbar and the show/hide content is in the
center of the screen), I can't imagine that JAWS users would know that
content has changed/become "visible".
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 7:22AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: julian.rickards
> I can't imagine that JAWS users would know that
> content has changed/become "visible".
Julian, sorry, should have specified: from the way I understand the document, it's not that JAWS instantly flags the newly visible content to the user, but rather that JAWS (the application) is notified that a change has occurred somewhere in the document itself...if that makes sense.
Admittedly, my blanket statement of "all javascript is fine as long as it's user activated" only referred to the screenreader's ability to detect that something has actually happened. There are still the usual other considerations to be taken into account (e.g. if you have an onfocus that changes something in another part of the document, this may not be apparent to the user, and if onblur it removes the change again, the user may never realise that something actually occurred).
And having said all that, I may just be completely wrong, as I'm trying to divine meaning out of a few lines found on the Freedom Scientific site ;)
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: michael.brockington
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 10:07AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
> > From: julian.rickards
>
> > I can't imagine that JAWS users would know that
> > content has changed/become "visible".
>
.....
> And having said all that, I may just be completely wrong, as
> I'm trying to divine meaning out of a few lines found on the
> Freedom Scientific site ;)
Well that rather brings us back to an earlier, contentious thread - legality.
How the **** am I supposed to do anything when experts can't agree on what
one of the commonest screen readers does? If I am working on a private site
then I can do my best, but if I'm working on a site that I could get sued
over then I have to make damn sure that I don't break _anything_ for anyone,
which inevitably means compromise, and generally means dropping features.
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
From: Derek Featherstone
Date: Tue, Oct 12 2004 10:13AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
p.h.lauke wrote:
> Julian, sorry, should have specified: from the way I
> understand the document, it's not that JAWS instantly flags
> the newly visible content to the user, but rather that JAWS
> (the application) is notified that a change has occurred
> somewhere in the document itself...if that makes sense.
I'm sure everyone here would agree that the interaction of screen readers
with JavaScript is is a very difficult subject to fully understand -- I've
been doing some tests, with varying results and I'm really going to have to
try to break it down to very simple test cases to be able to conclude
anything meaningful from the tests.
As an example -- in one recent accessibility audit we conducted, we saw the
use of javascript to show and hide divs using a classic DHTML library/API.
Even after the div was shown, both JAWS and Window Eyes did not appear to be
able to access the content. I contrast that with some recent DOM based
scripting I've been doing for one of our clients, and the showing and hiding
seems to be working just fine -- the screen readers are picking it up. In
the recent project I've been using modern JS techniques only. In all
honesty, I wasn't expecting the recent examples to work at all - I was
expecting failure, just like the classic DHTML example. At this point, I
don't know if it is the scripting techniques used, or some other components
of the document...
It is confusing to say the least, and difficult to draw conclusions with so
many moving parts... If I find anything new, I'll be sure to post...
Best regards,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 613.599.9784; toll-free: 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
Web Accessibility: http://www.wats.ca
Personal: http://www.boxofchocolates.ca
From: Annmarie L Gemma
Date: Sat, Oct 30 2004 12:47PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Andrew,
While reviewing www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html that you suggested, I came across a very helpful table that summarizes checkpoints that contribute to different design categories including: usability, public search engine, low bandwidth, support low literacy, and semantic web.
Checkpoint 1.1 Provide text equivalent for non-text element was listed as contributing to usability, and other categories including public search engine and low bandwidth.
I can understand how "alt" attributes benefit search engine results and users with low bandwidth, but I wasn't clear on how it is important for usability for people without disabilities. Does anyone have opinions on this?
It is my hope to demonstrate that accessibility efforts also improve the experience of users without disabilities. I'm planning to do some usability tests with visually impaired users and then users without disabilities.
Would anyone anticipate the presence of "alt" as improving the experience of users without disabilities (in terms of any of the metrics noted on UsableNet: time, number of errors, success rate, and subjective rating)?
Thank you very much for any help that you can offer.
Regards,
Annmarie
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Arch
Date: Sunday, October 10, 2004 6:33 am
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Web accessibility and usability
> Hi Annmarie,
>
> Don't know of any formal studies (apart from the
> Microsoft/Forrester one),
> but many people have written articles on this topic. E.g.:
> 1.
> www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-
> accessibility/web-accessib
> ility-usability.shtml
> 2. www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html
> 3. http://www.uiaccess.com/upa2000a.html
> 4. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/arch/index.html
> 5. http://www.frontend.com/accessibility_paper.html#Usability
>
> Andrew
> _________________________________
> Dr Andrew Arch
> Manager Online Accessibility Consulting
> Accessible Information Solutions, NILS
> Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565
> http://www.nils.org.au/ | http://www.it-test.com.au/ |
> http://www.ozewai.org/
>
> Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/
>
> National Information & Library Service, Australia
> A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd.
>
>
From: Estelle Weyl
Date: Sat, Oct 30 2004 1:39PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Think cell phones. Think low bandwidth. Think lynx, and other imageless
browsing experiences.
Also, sometimes I see an image and wonder what it is - a simple mouse over
gives me more information.
Sometimes I get to a site, and they moved their image directory, or wrote
their JavaScript incorrectly, or have a typo in the code and the image just
doesn't come thru. With an alt tag we are not left wondering.
Many designers code with Dreamweaver. When you change a folder into a new
directory in DW it updates the links to images, but not the image calls in
JavaScript. I often find web pages where the image rollover effect is broken
and the images don't appear. That would be a prime example of when having
an alt tag helps the sited user.
Estelle Weyl
http://www.EvoTech.net
415.845.9906
Helping make the web accessible since 1999
From: Web Aim
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2004 11:30AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
An Artists Point of View.
As an artist I really need to use longer
descriptions than is possible using a simple ALT atribute. Considering
longdesc is not totally supported I use a link to a full description at the
bottom of each page.
On my art web design site I have section called
"Pictures we can all see" which has an example of alternative description of a
paint box for sale in a web shop.
<A
href="http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/shop.html">http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/shop.html
and of craft items at
<A
href="http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/smallitems.html">http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/smallitems.html
This level of description is essential for
selling art and craft items to non graphics viewers but also very useful to all
users.
For any complex graphic, especially photographs
that can vary so much in quality on the Web media, using extented descriptions
can be useful for pointing out important features that may be overlooked at
first glance.
The whole article which is aimed at accessibility
for art websites can be seen at
<A
href="http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/bloodbottler.html">http://www.profwebsite.com/imagine/bloodbottler.html
On my Friends of Beamish Museum site Home Page I show a photograph and use
both a short ALT and also use a TITLE:
alt="Friends erecting a sign." title="One of the many jobs the Friends do is
to repair, paint and erect signs in the Museum.
With text as follows...
"Photograph: Three good Friends of Beamish erecting a sign they have restored
for the Museum." and (link)<A
title="Alternative text for the picture of Friends erecting a sign"
href="http://www.friendsofbeamish.co.uk/homealt.html#alt1">With an alternative
picture description for non graphics or blind users.
See <A
href="http://www.friendsofbeamish.co.uk/index.html">http://www.friendsofbeamish.co.uk/index.html
The extended (real alternative) description is
on a seperate page but I will be moving it to the bottom of the
page.
APPROPRIATE is the word I would use when
deciding on the many possible uses of the ALT attribute.
There is lots written on the Web on the subject but
this is from my own point of view as an artist presenting
mostly graphical work to the widest possible audience. Blind people DO buy
art!
Joe Bosher.
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2004 3:31PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Estelle wrote:
> Also, sometimes I see an image and wonder what it is - a
> simple mouse over gives me more information.
> Sometimes I get to a site, and they moved their image
> directory, or wrote their JavaScript incorrectly, or have a
> typo in the code and the image just doesn't come thru. With
> an alt tag we are not left wondering.
>
A minor point of clarification:
Firefox does not display the alt attribute on mouseover. IE does, but it "shouldn't".
More discussion at http://wordpress.org/support/3/14629
Kerry
--
Kerry Webb
ACT Information Management
(02) 62070239
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient:
Please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately.
You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Arch
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2004 5:18PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Annmarie,
In Australia it has been estimated that 30% of our rural population browses
the Web with graphics off due to slow telecommunications [1]. I'm sure this
is similar in many other parts of the world too. If you give people in this
situation the option of a good experience with their graphics off, then
you'll save you own bandwidth too.
While things are slowly improving here, the National Farmers Federation tell
me that there is still a long way to go!
Cheers, Andrew
[1] http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/00-13.pdf (NB a 260kb PDF file)
From: Cheyrl D. Wise
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2004 6:40PM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | Next message →
While for people on high bandwidth connections with no visual difficulties
the alt tag does not add to usability in way that I can see but for people
on low bandwidth connections where graphic navigation is used it can be very
useful since it allow them to navigate the site before the graphics
completely download. This is particularly useful when a person has visited a
site before and knows where they want to go but does not know the exact page
name (in other words no bookmark).
I haven't looked at the metrics you mentioned so the above is subjective but
based on observation of people on dial-up connections who are frustrated
when they have to wait for a graphics heavy site to download when all they
want to do is get to an internal page on the site.
Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
MS-MVP-FrontPage
www.wiserways.com
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
713.353.0139 Office
From: Jenny Craven
Date: Wed, Nov 03 2004 4:01AM
Subject: Re: Web accessibility and usability
← Previous message | No next message
Dear Annmarie
You might be interested in looking at a study undertaken by the Centre for Research in Library and Information
Management (CERLIM) at Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), which compared the information seeking behaviour of 20
'sighted' and 20 'visually impaired' users. The report is called Non-visual Access to the Digital Library. You can read
about the study and access the final report from the CERLIM website at:
http://www.cerlim.ac.uk/projects/nova/index.php
I hope you find this study to be of interest.
All the best
Jenny Craven
**********************************************************************
Jenny Craven, Research Associate
The Centre for Research in Library and Information Management (CERLIM)
Dept. Information and Communications
The Manchester Metropolitan University
Geoffrey Manton Building
Rosamond Street West
off Oxford Road
Manchester M15 6LL UK
Tel 0161 247 6142 Fax 0161 247 6979
Email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web: http://www.cerlim.ac.uk