accessibile sites "must work in non-javascript browsers
| TOOLman wrote: |
| (Besides, 'ajax' uses XMLHttpRequest which is not in any standard AFAIK.) |
XmlHttpRequest is a de facto standard supported in Internet Explorer, Firefox and Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Konqueror.
Ajax also involves other standards including:
* JavaScript (or more technically EcmaScript) which is a standard of the European Computer Manufacturer's Association (ECMA) supported in a large number of browsers.
* DOM is a W3C standard
* XML is a W3C standard
* HTTP is a W3C standard
Interestingly, its the area of DOM updating where the accessibility problems are - and those problems themselves are not unsolvable.
Share: 
I must say I'm lost for words .. I have never considered accessibility to be "just" or even "primarily" about people with disabilities. I've always considered it to be: going to all reasonable lengths to ensure the widest possible access to information you provide. Whatever the reason, be it physical, financial, logistic, whatever ... if there's a barrier, try to overcome it.
Fuck the law - I neither know nor care where the law draws the line.
I'm all for the debate, but I'm also kind of amazed we're even having it. Isofarro what is your ultimate point here? I don't want to assume your motivation, but what you're saying reads as though you're looking for reasons why you don't have to consider key aspects of accessible design, like making sure an interface still works without javascript, or making sure it works in browsers other than IE.
Both of these are basic tenets of device independence, defined and enshrined in WCAG. I don't understand how you can possibly call them into question in the context of accessibility??
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| Yes, up to a point. Web developers and designers should follow web standards. When a standards compliant, and technically accessible, web site is launched, if it doesn't work in Lynx or older browser, its not fair to put that burden on the web developer. A standards compliant website can be done that only works in IE6, as long as it doesn't discriminate against people with disabilities, then its accessible. |
Surely the definition of accessibility is that it allows anyone to access it, regardless of their abilities or the technologies that they are using?
Whether that's lynx on an old 486 win95 machine on a 14.4 buad modem from a croft in the highlands or whether it's a business user with winxp and the latest browser/access tech combo.
It might not all look the same, but it should at least function.
| Isofarro wrote: |
| There is one area where this situation is currently arising: PDFs. Many people will say PDFs are inaccessible, don't use them. Yet, there are tools available that makes PDF content available to screen readers. When the technology is available to make a previously inaccessible content available, then I would say it is on the onus of the user to take advantage of that option. |
Yeah, but it still depends how the PDF is created - yes, there are tools available that can convert PDFs, but if you've got an image of text that's been put straight into a PDF without being tagged, it's fairly unlikely that any conversion tool is going to be able to get readable text out of that - even if it were including OCR'ing in the process.
| Isofarro wrote: |
| Yes. I'm aware that both Jaws and WindowEyes cost around 1000 a piece (on a typical business standard Windows 2000 machine), and I'm aware that many expert screen reader users have both installed - using Window Eyes to recover when JAWS crashes, for example. Its unsettling that screen readers are that expensive, compared to free browsers.
However, I don't see it as the web developers responsibility to support legacy screen readers. As long as they provide standards compliant, and accessible websites, if it doesn't work on older screen readers because of a problem in that software, and there are workable sofware upgrades and alternatives available, then its the user responsibility to upgrade or switch software. |
With JAWS at least, it's not just about the initial purchase cost - each upgrade costs in the region of £100 and there are maybe 3 upgrades a year. It's really not reasonable to expect a user to keep upgrading their software when that sort of cost comes along with it.
To my mind, this is no different to the whole NN4 thing - I'm not going to tear my hair out to make sure my site looks exactly the same as it does in IE6 or Firefox when using NN4, but what I will do is make sure that it works.
If your site is standards compliant and accessible it should still work - maybe not in the same way as it does in more modern browsers, but that's not the point. To me, it's about giving your users the choice of how they want to access what you're putting online - whether that's using years old technology or the latest smartphone that hasn't quite been able to handle javascript or CSS yet.
Share:
| hostbreak wrote: |
| I would like to know about Ajax can any one guide me |
* Jim Ley's XmlHttpRequest documentation is one of the best resources around.
* Drew McLelland's xml.com article is a recent addition.
* Jeremy Keith on progressive enhancement using XmlHttpRequest
Share:
| brothercake wrote: |
| I must say I'm lost for words .. I have never considered accessibility to be "just" or even "primarily" about people with disabilities. I've always considered it to be: going to all reasonable lengths to ensure the widest possible access to information you provide. Whatever the reason, be it physical, financial, logistic, whatever ... if there's a barrier, try to overcome it. |
I suggest doing a little research into what web accessibility is or isn't. Its obvious that you believe your definition isn't the same as mine. I didn't just make mine up, I feel I can back up my definition using a whole host of references to material written by web accessibility experts, and have also been peer-reviewed by other experts. Can you do the same?
I would suggest starting at the W3C WAI, and working outwards from there.
| Quote: |
| I'm all for the debate, but I'm also kind of amazed we're even having it. Isofarro what is your ultimate point here? |
People. The reason why content is inaccessible is based on people, not software.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: | ||
People. The reason why content is inaccessible is based on people, not software. |
Damned pesky people being different, having different requirements and restrictions - How very inconsiderate of them.
Share:
| pixeldiva wrote: |
| Surely the definition of accessibility is that it allows anyone to access it, regardless of their abilities or the technologies that they are using? |
Regardless of their abilities - yes. Regardless of the technologies they are using - depends. If there's technology available that makes it accessible and the visitor choses not to use that technology, then no.
| pixeldiva wrote: |
| Yeah, but it still depends how the PDF is created - yes, there are tools available that can convert PDFs, but if you've got an image of text that's been put straight into a PDF without being tagged, it's fairly unlikely that any conversion tool is going to be able to get readable text out of that - even if it were including OCR'ing in the process. |
Given a properly and correctly tagged PDF, it doesn't work on Lynx without installing an up-to-date helper application. If you chose not to install that helper application, that doesn't make the content inaccessible. The onus is also on the user to upgrade his software with the new technology that makes the PDF content accessible to him.
| pixeldiva wrote: |
| With JAWS at least, it's not just about the initial purchase cost - each upgrade costs in the region of £100 and there are maybe 3 upgrades a year. It's really not reasonable to expect a user to keep upgrading their software when that sort of cost comes along with it. |
It certainly isn't the web developers fault that screen reader vendors charge £100 per upgrade. That's the free market for you, when demand is limited, the cost of manufacturing per unit is going to be high.
Screen reader vendors should be held accountable for this cost, not the web developer.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| If there's technology available that makes it accessible and the visitor choses not to use that technology, then no. |
Agreed - but that's not the point. What if there's technology available that the visitor is unable to use for one of any number of reasons - you're saying that doesn't count as an accessibility issue?
Now sure, you can't cater to a person who is blind but unable to afford any kind of reading software; you can't cater to people who don't have a computer; but you can (and should) cater to people who use older browsers, don't have scripting, images, plugins, or things like that.
| Isofarro wrote: |
| I would suggest starting at the W3C WAI, and working outwards from there. |
Okay then:
| Quote: |
|
"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect." -- Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web |
See how it says "access by everyone, regarding of disability"?
Now, if you define "disability" as "blind, deaf or other such physical or mental handicap" then sure, but that's not a complete definition of disability. Here's a couple to choose from:
| Quote: |
|
- A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area. - Something that hinders or incapacitates. |
Note "something that hinders or incapacitates", and there are many such things, quite apart from physical or mental disability.
I'm not saying you should try to cater for every possible reason why someone might not be able to access information - you do have to draw the line - but personally I don't draw the line at the far-edge of other people's ability to change, I draw it at my ability to accomodate them.
| Quote: |
| People. The reason why content is inaccessible is based on people, not software. |
Exactly, and people may not be able to use an interface if it only works with JS - if you care about people, why are you looking for excuses not to cater to some of them?
Share:
| brothercake wrote: | ||
Agreed - but that's not the point. |
It is the point. If you chose not to use a technology that makes content accessible to you, you have no grounds to complain unless your disability is the reason you can't use that technology.
| brothercake wrote: | ||||
Okay then:
See how it says "access by everyone, regarding of disability"? |
Did you check for the context of this quote? For example:
| http://www.w3.org/Press/IPO-announce wrote: |
|
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) today announced the launch of the International Program Office (IPO) for the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) to promote and achieve Web functionality for people with disabilities. "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect," said Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web. "The IPO will ensure the Web can be accessed through different combinations of senses and physical capabilities just as other W3C activities ensure its operation across different hardware and software platforms, media, cultures and countries." |
Furthermore, the Director of WAI, Judy Brewer, is quoted on the very same press release as saying:
| Quote: |
|
Judy Brewer, recently appointed Director of the IPO, affirmed that "the W3C realizes the critical importance of the Web for people with disabilities, and is committed to making the Web Accessibility Initiative a success. |
Or, what about the launch of WAI itself:
| http://www.w3.org/Press/WAI-Launch.html wrote: |
|
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, USA -- April 7, 1997 -- The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) today announced the launch of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) to promote and achieve Web functionality for people with disabilities. Endorsed by The White House and W3C Members, the WAI will involve the establishment of an International Program Office (IPO) responsible for developing software protocols and technologies, creating guidelines for the use of technologies, educating the industry, and conducting research and development. |
Lets try a list of frequently asked questions about Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. What about the question: "What are the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines"?"
| http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCAG-REC-fact#what wrote: |
|
The "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" are a W3C specification providing guidance on accessibility of Web sites for people with disabilities. They have been developed by the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative. The specification contains fourteen guidelines which are general principles of accessible design. Each guideline is associated with one or more checkpoints describing how to apply that guideline to particular features of Web pages. An appendix to the guidelines, "List of Checkpoints for the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" presents the checkpoints sorted by priority for easy reference. These guidelines not only make pages more accessible to people with disabilities, but also have the side benefit of making pages more accessible to all users, or to users using different browsers or one of the emerging handheld or voice-based computers. |
Hmm, what about: "Who are these guidelines for?"
| http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCAG-REC-fact#what wrote: |
|
The guidelines are written for a variety of audiences--people who are designing Web sites; people who are checking existing Web sites for accessibility; organizations that wish to require a given level of accessibility for their Web sites; and others who are interested in ensuring that people with disabilities can access information on the Web. |
Share:
I'm not quite sure what point Isofarro is trying to make, other than "it's okay to not bother about more general accessibility issues (such as screen resolution, browser dependence, mobile browsing, javascript-dependence) as long as it works for people with disabilities who are using the most up-to-date software/equipment".
All you seem intent on doing is quoting the letter of the law rather than the spirit in which most of us seem to want to take it.
The Watchmaker Project - my personal blog
29digital Design Studio - freelance web design/development
Share:
| Buddy Bradley wrote: |
| All you seem intent on doing is quoting the letter of the law rather than the spirit in which most of us seem to want to take it. |
When the "spirit" obfuscates the purpose behind these guidelines, that creates a problem. It dilutes the real message and the real intentions behind web accessibility - ensuring that people with disabilities have an equivalent participation in the web. This "spirit" is what's making web designers the laughing stock of the accessibility community, and part of the problem.
Share:
My take on this. Do your best to make your site as accessible as you can for all users acknoweldging the fact that some will be using older technology either due to their inability to upgrade or wish to stick to technology they feel comfortable with.
We cannot sit back and let developments take place without trying to adopt them, particularly if it can provide benefit, at the same time we cannot forget those who are as above.
I'm lucky in that my sites are pure HTML/CSS with no add on or plug ins, no ASP, Java or anything else, the only 'inaccessible' items are PDF's which have been downloaded and I have no control over.
Brethren & Ladies, we all have our points of view, they have been elequently argued and forcefully discussed, let's draw a line here, have one final statement, and move on to that which we are all here for. ACCESSIBILITY
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| This "spirit" is what's making web designers the laughing stock of the accessibility community, and part of the problem. |
Err... since when? ... and what accessibility community?... because it certainly isn't something I've ever come across...
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| This "spirit" is what's making web designers the laughing stock of the accessibility community, and part of the problem. |
What crap! So the non-web accessibility community never think about the knock-on effects of their work for non-disabled users (e.g. wheelchair ramps being useful for pushchairs, bike riders and people who have trouble with steps)?
The Watchmaker Project - my personal blog
29digital Design Studio - freelance web design/development
Share: