E-mail List Archives
Thread: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)
From: Dean Hamack
Date: Wed, Jan 07 2009 1:30PM
Subject: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
No previous message | Next message →
Putting together my wordpress theme and I'm trying to figure out which of
these layouts is better for screenreaders from a usability standpoint. The
first one has the navigation at the top with a skip link to jump to the
content, and all of the categories in list item tags.
The second one has the content at the top, with a link to skip to the
navigation, and the category headings in h2 tags.
http://bushidodesigns.net/test/1.htm
http://bushidodesigns.net/test/2.htm
Dean Hamack
Lead Web Developer
Bushido Designs
Tel:(206)523-6705
www.bushidodesigns.net
From: David Andrews
Date: Wed, Jan 07 2009 2:15PM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
For what is is worth, I like the second one better. There is more
navigation, and you get to the meat quicker. I am blind, and a
screen reader user.
Dave
At 02:28 PM 1/7/2009, you wrote:
>Putting together my wordpress theme and I'm trying to figure out which of
>these layouts is better for screenreaders from a usability standpoint. The
>first one has the navigation at the top with a skip link to jump to the
>content, and all of the categories in list item tags.
>
>The second one has the content at the top, with a link to skip to the
>navigation, and the category headings in h2 tags.
>
>http://bushidodesigns.net/test/1.htm
>
>http://bushidodesigns.net/test/2.htm
>
>Dean Hamack
>Lead Web Developer
>Bushido Designs
>Tel:(206)523-6705
>www.bushidodesigns.net
>
>
>
From: Dean Hamack
Date: Wed, Jan 07 2009 5:50PM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Dave. I think a lot of us sighted web developers make incorrect
assumptions about what is best for blind users. For example, I have always
put the navigation links before the content in my pages. But it makes sense
that the content should come first, since it's the most important thing.
It's probably also better from a search engine standpoint.
In other news: after searching everywhere for a stylesheet switcher that was
accessible and worked without javascript without any success, I finally have
one built that works great. Anyone who is interested can check it out here:
http://bushidodesigns.net/switcher/example.php
On 1/7/09 1:11 PM, "David Andrews" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> For what is is worth, I like the second one better. There is more
> navigation, and you get to the meat quicker. I am blind, and a
> screen reader user.
>
> Dave
From: Randall Pope
Date: Thu, Jan 08 2009 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Dean,
This is coming from a low vision DeafBlind's perspective.
In your first email, most people who are DeafBlind using the screen readers
like the second one.
In this email, I love the CSS switcher without using java script. For some
reason, there is a good number of DeafBlind using older assistive technology
are having some issues with java script. But I'm not exactly sure what are
the issues. One question comes to mind. Will this work with Joomla?
With Warm Regards,
Randall "Randy" Pope
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
Website: http://www.aadb.org
301 495-4402 VP/TTY
301 495-4403 Voice
301 495-4404 Fax
AIM: RandyAADB
Want to keep up with the latest news in the Deaf-Blind Community? Consider
subscribing to the monthly newsletter, "AADB Today" at http://aadb.org. It's
free and AADB membership is not required.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dean Hamack
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:46 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Which of these is better for screenreaders?
Thanks Dave. I think a lot of us sighted web developers make incorrect
assumptions about what is best for blind users. For example, I have always
put the navigation links before the content in my pages. But it makes sense
that the content should come first, since it's the most important thing.
It's probably also better from a search engine standpoint.
In other news: after searching everywhere for a stylesheet switcher that was
accessible and worked without javascript without any success, I finally have
one built that works great. Anyone who is interested can check it out here:
http://bushidodesigns.net/switcher/example.php
On 1/7/09 1:11 PM, "David Andrews" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> For what is is worth, I like the second one better. There is more
> navigation, and you get to the meat quicker. I am blind, and a
> screen reader user.
>
> Dave
From: Dean Hamack
Date: Thu, Jan 08 2009 11:55AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 1/8/09 8:27 AM, "Randall Pope" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I love the CSS switcher without using java script...
> One question comes to mind. Will this work with Joomla?
Hi Randy,
Initially, I am making the theme switcher part of a Wordpress theme. I'm
sure it could be built into a Joomla plugin as well. I have some friends who
work with Joomla a lot. Perhaps I can get them to help with the project.
I'll keep everyone on the list posted.
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Thu, Jan 08 2009 3:45PM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 8/1/09 00:45, Dean Hamack wrote:
> I think a lot of us sighted web developers make incorrect
> assumptions about what is best for blind users. For example, I have always
> put the navigation links before the content in my pages. But it makes sense
> that the content should come first, since it's the most important thing.
Perhaps worth linking you to this old small-scale study of screen reader
user preferences and expectations:
http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/
> It's probably also better from a search engine standpoint.
Not necessarily though. It might be worse, for example, if you're trying
to drive crawlers deeper into the site.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
From: Randall Pope
Date: Fri, Jan 09 2009 9:35AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
Please keep us posted on the CSS Style switchers for PHP and Joomla. I have
many low vision surfers screaming for multi choices of font sizes and
colors. The main reason for this is many cannot afford to buy accessible
screen enlarger program such as Zoomtext and others.
Many thanks for your time.
With Warm Regards,
Randall "Randy" Pope
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
Website: http://www.aadb.org
301 495-4402 VP/TTY
301 495-4403 Voice
301 495-4404 Fax
AIM: RandyAADB
Want to keep up with the latest news in the Deaf-Blind Community? Consider
subscribing to the monthly newsletter, "AADB Today" at http://aadb.org. It's
free and AADB membership is not required.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dean Hamack
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:44 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Which of these is better for screenreaders?
On 1/8/09 8:27 AM, "Randall Pope" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I love the CSS switcher without using java script...
> One question comes to mind. Will this work with Joomla?
Hi Randy,
Initially, I am making the theme switcher part of a Wordpress theme. I'm
sure it could be built into a Joomla plugin as well. I have some friends who
work with Joomla a lot. Perhaps I can get them to help with the project.
I'll keep everyone on the list posted.
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Fri, Jan 09 2009 9:45AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 9/1/09 16:30, Randall Pope wrote:
> I have
> many low vision surfers screaming for multi choices of font sizes and
> colors. The main reason for this is many cannot afford to buy accessible
> screen enlarger program such as Zoomtext and others.
Interesting. Do you know why they are trying to fix this on a site by
site basis rather than using:
1. Windows' built-in high contrast settings.
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/training/default.aspx
2. Simply enforcing their own zoom, text size, style, color, and font
choices in their browser of choice:
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/products/ie6/
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/products/ie7/
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Accessibility
http://www.opera.com/docs/usercss/
3. One of the various free/cheap magnifiers available?
http://www.magnifiers.org/links/Download_Software/Screen_Magnifiers/Windows_Freeware_and_shareware/
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
From: ben morrison
Date: Fri, Jan 09 2009 9:50AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Randall Pope < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I have
> many low vision surfers screaming for multi choices of font sizes and
> colors. The main reason for this is many cannot afford to buy accessible
> screen enlarger program such as Zoomtext and others.
>
Surely they will have problems actually using the computer itself if
they need zooming capabilities...
As with the other thread concerning contrast and text resize, these
are issues that need to be addressed at either OS level or browser
level.
Education is the key, people do not use the web for just 1 website,
they tend to visit many different sites.
Ben
--
Ben Morrison
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Jan 09 2009 10:30AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
> Education is the key, people do not use the web for just 1 website,
> they tend to visit many different sites.
I think this statement is important to highlight. On a site-by-site basis,
web developers should be responsible for designing sites which adhere to
industry guidelines which were (hopefully, at least) intended to both
provide equivalent access and enable assistive technologies to enhance
access. For instance, WCAG 2.0 1.4.1, 1.4.3, and 1.4.6 provide guidance on
developing with an appropriate color contrast. This is what developers are
"on the hook for".
For some users, merely following these guidelines will not be enough, simply
because their vision is just too bad. It would be unreasonable and
inappropriate to expect all developers of all sites to also support special
zooming capabilities, multiple different color schemes & contrast ratios,
etc. Doing so would be like expecting all websites to be self-voicing and
provide the same special navigation and reading features as screen readers.
It just isn't reasonable.
What is reasonable, however, is to provide a site which is compatible with
(and doesn't interfere with) assistive technologies. Providing sufficient
accessibility in the "regular" design will do exactly that without needing
to create & maintain multiple interfaces.
Karl
From: Dean Hamack
Date: Fri, Jan 09 2009 5:25PM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 1/8/09 2:40 PM, "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Perhaps worth linking you to this old small-scale study of screen reader
> user preferences and expectations:
>
> http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/
Very interesting survey. Basically the bottom line is "some people like
Coke, some people like Pepsi", and there is no right answer.
From: Emma Duke-Williams
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 3:10AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | Next message →
2009/1/9 Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> Interesting. Do you know why they are trying to fix this on a site by
> site basis rather than using:
>
> 1. Windows' built-in high contrast settings.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/enable/training/default.aspx
>
> 2. Simply enforcing their own zoom, text size, style, color, and font
> choices in their browser of choice:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/enable/products/ie6/
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/enable/products/ie7/
>
> http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Accessibility
>
> http://www.opera.com/docs/usercss/
>
> 3. One of the various free/cheap magnifiers available?
>
> http://www.magnifiers.org/links/Download_Software/Screen_Magnifiers/Windows_Freeware_and_shareware/
<rest snipped>
I also think that the toolbar that TechDis have developed is handy, as
you can easily change settings on particular pages if most pages are
OK, just few aren't. It only works for the current page, so really
suits only those that can cope with most pages.
http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=3_13
(They also have a tool to help you reset the style sheet, if you need
it for all pages).
The main thing that I've found is that the tool bar kit they've used
is the same as one used by some spyware tool bar builders. So, if you
install it & then run Spybot/Adaware, it will report it as potentially
malicious. Cross checking the CLSID with Symantech lets you know that
it's actually the kit that was used, not the actual tool bar, so you
have to allow that instance of that CLSID to be ignored. [If
subsequent toolbars with nasty intents get installed, you won't have
ignored those ones, as it records the location as well as CLSID])
Emma
--
Emma Duke-Williams:
School of Computing/ Faculty eLearning Co-ordinator, University of
Portsmouth, UK.
Blog: http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~duke-wie/blog/
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 3:25AM
Subject: Re: Which of these is better for screenreaders?
← Previous message | No next message
On 10/1/09 10:05, Emma Duke-Williams wrote:
> I also think that the toolbar that TechDis have developed is handy, as
> you can easily change settings on particular pages if most pages are
> OK, just few aren't. It only works for the current page, so really
> suits only those that can cope with most pages.
> http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=3_13
Very interesting. That's the first site-specific solution I've seen for IE.
It also reminds me to mention the RNIB Web Accessibility Toolbar:
http://tinyurl.com/5xlxfw
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis