E-mail List Archives
Thread: accessible version of website
Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)
From: Tyler Shepard
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 11:25AM
Subject: accessible version of website
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
I was on a website that as soon as I loaded the page it said if you are using a screen reader hit this key combo. Is this a new thing, to design one version for screen reader users and one for non-screen reader users? Would love to know your thoughts. I have mine not a fan because it is an us vs them idea.
From: Kathryn.Frederick
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 11:30AM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I've seen this before, but as someone who uses a screen reader and has some knowledge of accessibility practices and standards, I see the two versions as a crappy workaround. To me, it says something like the developer chose not to make their content accessible for all, and gave those who may use assistive technology a *different experience*. There may be times when having a screen reader version happens, but in general, when I connect with developers, I **strongly discourage** this behavior. I also suggest, when other digital content is created, such as documents, one version is made...not a regular version and an accessible version. After all, we want to be inclusive of everyone, not exclude some or give some folks a different experience.
Just my thoughts...
Katie Frederick
From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 11:36AM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
It depends what the link does. If it points to a different version of the website, then it's probably not a good idea, although there might be a good reason. Ideally, both versions would be fed from the same CMS so the content stays synchronised.
Alternatively, they might be using a style switcher to modify the appearance and behaviour of a single version of the website, which might be a sensible thing to do. We have recommended this approach for a few websites where the product owners insisted on having whizzy features that did not play nicely with assistive technologies.
Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd
From: Lucy GRECO
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 11:52AM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
That is probably one of those evil evil toolbars no you should never do
this never ever ever do this design inclusively design accessibly at one
version for everyone maintaining that ghetto style of website becomes
burdensome and inevitably you end up missing things on their quote screen
reader version that doesn't end up benefiting anyone Don't do it don't do
it ever
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 10:25 AM Tyler Shepard < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was on a website that as soon as I loaded the page it said if you are
> using a screen reader hit this key combo. Is this a new thing, to design
> one version for screen reader users and one for non-screen reader users?
> Would love to know your thoughts. I have mine not a fan because it is an us
> vs them idea.
> > > > >
From: Dhananjay Bhole
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 11:54AM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
It is not recommended to maintain 2 different versions of the website
as it is very difficult to maintain 2 versions of the websites
simultaneously. Also accessibility is not only for screen reader user.
It is for all.
It is not only discriminatory but also challenging for persons with
disabilities when they ask help of their sighted peers as sighted
persons find it unusual.
I also have same question in my mind why google has provided 2
versions of gmail as A. basic html version of gmail for screen reader
user and B. standard version for abled body persons.
I read one of the W3c document that maintaining 2 versions of website
is the accessibility myths. Then why Google like organizations have 2
versions for one of their very crucial products?
Regards
WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
On 4/27/20, Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> It depends what the link does. If it points to a different version of the
> website, then it's probably not a good idea, although there might be a good
> reason. Ideally, both versions would be fed from the same CMS so the content
> stays synchronised.
>
> Alternatively, they might be using a style switcher to modify the appearance
> and behaviour of a single version of the website, which might be a sensible
> thing to do. We have recommended this approach for a few websites where the
> product owners insisted on having whizzy features that did not play nicely
> with assistive technologies.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>
From: TJ McElroy
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 12:24PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I think that this is Chrome letting you know that it can render the web
page for use with the Chromium screen reader.
On 4/27/2020 1:54 PM, Dhananjay Bhole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is not recommended to maintain 2 different versions of the website
> as it is very difficult to maintain 2 versions of the websites
> simultaneously. Also accessibility is not only for screen reader user.
> It is for all.
>
> It is not only discriminatory but also challenging for persons with
> disabilities when they ask help of their sighted peers as sighted
> persons find it unusual.
>
> I also have same question in my mind why google has provided 2
> versions of gmail as A. basic html version of gmail for screen reader
> user and B. standard version for abled body persons.
>
> I read one of the W3c document that maintaining 2 versions of website
> is the accessibility myths. Then why Google like organizations have 2
> versions for one of their very crucial products?
>
> Regards
>
> WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
>
> On 4/27/20, Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> It depends what the link does. If it points to a different version of the
>> website, then it's probably not a good idea, although there might be a good
>> reason. Ideally, both versions would be fed from the same CMS so the content
>> stays synchronised.
>>
>> Alternatively, they might be using a style switcher to modify the appearance
>> and behaviour of a single version of the website, which might be a sensible
>> thing to do. We have recommended this approach for a few websites where the
>> product owners insisted on having whizzy features that did not play nicely
>> with assistive technologies.
>>
>> Steve Green
>> Managing Director
>> Test Partners Ltd
>>
>>
>>
From: Michael Ausbun
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 12:48PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello,
I have seen this occur when websites use an accessibility overlay such as the one found at the following link: https://accessibe.com/
If this is what you encountered, I'd recommend against this approach. Here are a few resources that explain why:
Jason Taylor of UsableNet wrote four reasons why accessibility overlays fall short<https://blog.usablenet.com/3-reasons-why-accessibility-overlays-fall-short>.
Karl Groves wrote Web Accessibility Overlays don't work<https://blog.tenon.io/web-accessibility-overlays-dont-work>
There is also this amusing, ententionally broken overlay demo page<https://overlaysdontwork.com/> .
I hope this helps!
Best,
Michael
--
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of TJ McElroy
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:25 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; Dhananjay Bhole < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] accessible version of website
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] WARNING: Be wise. Be cautious.
Hi,
I think that this is Chrome letting you know that it can render the web
page for use with the Chromium screen reader.
On 4/27/2020 1:54 PM, Dhananjay Bhole wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is not recommended to maintain 2 different versions of the website
> as it is very difficult to maintain 2 versions of the websites
> simultaneously. Also accessibility is not only for screen reader user.
> It is for all.
>
> It is not only discriminatory but also challenging for persons with
> disabilities when they ask help of their sighted peers as sighted
> persons find it unusual.
>
> I also have same question in my mind why google has provided 2
> versions of gmail as A. basic html version of gmail for screen reader
> user and B. standard version for abled body persons.
>
> I read one of the W3c document that maintaining 2 versions of website
> is the accessibility myths. Then why Google like organizations have 2
> versions for one of their very crucial products?
>
> Regards
>
> WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >>
>
>
>
> On 4/27/20, Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >> wrote:
>> It depends what the link does. If it points to a different version of the
>> website, then it's probably not a good idea, although there might be a good
>> reason. Ideally, both versions would be fed from the same CMS so the content
>> stays synchronised.
>>
>> Alternatively, they might be using a style switcher to modify the appearance
>> and behaviour of a single version of the website, which might be a sensible
>> thing to do. We have recommended this approach for a few websites where the
>> product owners insisted on having whizzy features that did not play nicely
>> with assistive technologies.
>>
>> Steve Green
>> Managing Director
>> Test Partners Ltd
>>
>>
>>
From: Andy Nelson
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2020 1:12PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
We recently had this discussion within our team. Research on WCAG for alternative version:
Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate different technology environments or user groups. Each version should be as conformant as possible. One version would need to be fully conformant in order to meet conformance requirement 1.
5.2.1 Conformance Level§
One of the following levels of conformance is met in full.
' For Level A conformance (the minimum level of conformance), the Web page satisfies all the Level A Success Criteria, or a conforming alternate version is provided.
' For Level AA conformance, the Web page satisfies all the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria, or a Level AA conforming alternate version is provided.
' For Level AAA conformance, the Web page satisfies all the Level A, Level AA and Level AAA Success Criteria, or a Level AAA conforming alternate version is provided.
Conforming alternate version
version that:
1. Conforms at the designated level, and
2. Provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language, and
3. Is as up to date as the non-conforming content, and
4. For which at least one of the following is true:
1. The conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an accessibility-supported mechanism, or
2. The non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version, or
3. The non-conforming version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version
Thanks,
Andy Nelson
From: Peter Shikli
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2020 1:38PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Back when I was young a hundred years ago, it was called "separate but
equal" and related to race-based education. Rather soundly discredited
because it turned out not to end up very equal. This is why I would
join my colleagues skeptical of the whole idea of accessible versions.Â
We need to include the disabled rather than give them some diluted
content to keep them from bothering us.
We can give the disabled a tabular view of a chart, for example, only to
find that sighted visitors like that too. I can say the same about a
longdesc I encountered once, which clarified things for me as a sighted
user. Key is that we may give the disabled some additional resources,
but let's avoid different versions.
Cheers,
Peter Shikli
Access2online Inc.
www.access2online.com
Prison inmates helping the internet become accessible
From: chagnon
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2020 2:03PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Reaffirming everything Peter said below about "separate but equal." It's not ethical and it doesn't work.
From the practical viewpoint, why in the world would you want to keep the content up to date in two websites, rather than in just one?
Who wants to double their workload? And quadruple their chances of failing?
â â â
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
â â â
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting ' training ' development ' design ' sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
â â â
Latest blog-newsletter â Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2020 3:20PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | Next message →
Just adding this lawsuit...it isn't the same thing, but this airline
got fined for doing two websites, one 'accessible' and the other
wasn't (I am paraphrasing). I am not a lawyer, and this may be
different, but the concept of two different sites is the same.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot7418
This takes us back to the late 90s/early 2000s, when there was the
text only version and the 'regular' website...never did it,
recommended against separate but equal in terms of websites.
Cheers
Lisa
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:04 PM < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Reaffirming everything Peter said below about "separate but equal." It's not ethical and it doesn't work.
>
> From the practical viewpoint, why in the world would you want to keep the content up to date in two websites, rather than in just one?
>
> Who wants to double their workload? And quadruple their chances of failing?
>
> â â â
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> â â â
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting ' training ' development ' design ' sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> â â â
> Latest blog-newsletter â Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
>
>
From: glen walker
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2020 3:54PM
Subject: Re: accessible version of website
← Previous message | No next message
Note that the Air Carrier Access Act (US law) says that the "primary" site
must be accessible. That's why the airline was fined.
See page 2 of
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Kiosk-website-FR-final%20rule.pdf
As we all know, WCAG is just a set of guidelines, not a law. The
"understanding conformance" section talks about an alternative version of a
website being acceptable from a conformance perspective.
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#conforming-alternate-versiondef
But that has nothing to do with actual laws, such as the ACAA, which
requires the primary site, not the alternative version, to be accessible.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Just adding this lawsuit...it isn't the same thing, but this airline
> got fined for doing two websites, one 'accessible' and the other
> wasn't (I am paraphrasing). I am not a lawyer, and this may be
> different, but the concept of two different sites is the same.
>
> https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot7418
>
> This takes us back to the late 90s/early 2000s, when there was the
> text only version and the 'regular' website...never did it,
> recommended against separate but equal in terms of websites.
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
>