Access keys revisited
Home / Site Building & Testing / Access keys revisited
I had the privilege of attending a demonstration today, where a blind person showed us how he uses a screen reader (Window-Eyes).
This was very educational in many ways, of course.
One important thing he told me, however, concerns access keys. We all know that access keys are a Bad Thing, right? Because they cause conflicts with access keys in browsers and assistive technologies?
Well, maybe not.
He told me that Window-Eyes and, according to him, virtually all screen readers, have a command for 'let the next keystroke through without interpreting it'. He didn't see (sorry
) any problems with using access keys, with respect to screen readers.
The issue of browser conflicts still apply for sighted users, of course, but apparently it's not that big an issue for the visually impaired.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share: 
| TOOLman wrote: |
| He didn't see (sorry ) any problems with using access keys, with respect to screen readers. |
But you are talking about someone who was quite tech-savvy and really knew how to use the screen reader. I'm not getting at screen reader users here, but how many know the full functionality in that way? But, then we could say that:
| Quote: |
| The onus is also on the user. |
_________________
Jon Gibbins :// blogs at dotjay.co.uk, works with Analog.
Share:
Exactly. Just as we assume that sighted people who'd like to use access keys know how to activate them, we should be allowed to assume that non-sighted users know how to make it work with their assistive technology.
We could also include a paragraph about this in our accessibility statements, of course. I've been meaning to add something for ordinary, non-techie users with info about how they can change the text size and open links in a separate window or tab. It's amazing how many people don't know even those simple things.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
Is it worth setting up some kind of common online resource for this? I mean, just like we use external CSS - one change affects all? Then, anyone who wants to inform their visitors about using a particular browser to do certain things can simply link to that resource. The only problem I can see with this though, is the implied affiliation of linking to a common resource.
Just an idea I had - might be a useless one.
_________________
Jon Gibbins :// blogs at dotjay.co.uk, works with Analog.
Share:
Communist resource that wouldn't go down too well… I've always been under the impression it's swings and roundabouts with accessibility._________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| Robert Wellock wrote: |
| Communist resource that wouldn't go down too well… I've always been under the impression it's swings and roundabouts with accessibility. |
Fair enough.
Sorry, Tommy. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.
_________________
Jon Gibbins :// blogs at dotjay.co.uk, works with Analog.
Share:
| dotjay wrote: | ||
But, then we could say that:
|
get your own catchphrase - that one be mine :p
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
Screen reader users need to take the time to learn and understand their equipment, just as all users need to take the time to learn about their machine and browser to use it effectively.
Access keys are an extra. They can be a useful tool which makes navigating a site so much easier, but they augment the existing links. Just like discovering that Alt+LeftArrow goes back, or that you can set your middle right button to go Back, the discovery of similar things in a screen reader setup is equally helpful but not essential. We shouldn't feel sorry for blind users - most of the time they're rather we didn't. On average, disabled people have a higher level of understanding of specialist equipment than able bodied people have of non-specialist equipment.
It's up to the manufacturers of this equipment to inform and educate the user, and it's up to the user to listen to them. We then can advise that our site are 'enhanced' and easier to use, and hope that it's of use.
_________________
Kajun
Share:
Although I see where you're coming from about the common resource, there's a small issue that complicates things: languages. We'd have to make that resource available in a staggering number of languages, which would become a maintenance nightmare. Each change would have to be synchronised over perhaps hundreds of pages. The idea is basically good, but it might not be possible in practice.
Kajun, you're right. But screen readers are quite complex, with a myriad of configurable options. In my experience, non-sighted people rely much more on memory than those of us who can jot down things on Post-It notes (which we then promptly misplace, but that's another issue). Still, they'll probably learn and remember the features that they use most frequently, and never bother with the rest.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: |
| get your own catchphrase - that one be mine :p |
He he, that's why I put it as a quote, Patrick.
| TOOLman wrote: |
| Although I see where you're coming from about the common resource, there's a small issue that complicates things: languages. |
Yes, I hadn't thought of that. I guess that it would be better to have such information using the same language as the site.
| TOOLman wrote: |
| Kajun, you're right. But screen readers are quite complex, with a myriad of configurable options. |
Another reason against using a common resource for such information - Would it not be helpful, if not, totally necessary to have information about the accessibility features of the site in question - including its particular quirks? If you know that your site doesn't quite work in some screen readers, you can say this. I hope you get what I mean.
But, back to the access keys debate itself: if even one person finds access keys on your site useful, why not use them? If access keys don't work in a particular screen reader, then they don't. We can try our best to overcome issues like this, but we can't be expected to do any more than that.
If access keys are an "extra" then there's nothing much lost - like with our "only-for-secondary-functionality" view of JavaScript - so long as using them doesn't crash the user's browser! And, as I've said, if you know of any quirks your site has when using a particular screen reader, you can mention that in an Accessibility Statement.
_________________
Jon Gibbins :// blogs at dotjay.co.uk, works with Analog.
Share:
Of course, but the problem lies elsewhere: many access keys cause conflicts with built-in accelerators in certain browsers.
For instance, if I choose 'F' as an accesskey for something, I will make it impossible for an English IE/Win user to access his/her File menu with Alt+F. Of course, they can press F10 to activate the menu bar, and then get to File with F, but how many average users know that? (OTOH, how many average users use Alt+F to access the File menu in the first place, but that's beside the point.
)
If a screen reader overrides an access key unless you 'escape' it, there's no problem. But if an access key overrides browser functionality, without a way to escape it, there is a problem.
The major fault, IMHO, is that most user agents use the same modifier key (Alt under Windows) for access keys as for UI accelerators. Opera has a different approach, but unfortunately their modifier (Shift+Esc) is quite cumbersome and also requires some dexterity if you're to hit the access key within the allotted timeout period.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: |
| But screen readers are quite complex, with a myriad of configurable options. Still, they'll probably learn and remember the features that they use most frequently, and never bother with the rest. |
Sure. But who are to tell a screen reader user how to use their screen reader? We are web developers. We are not assistive technology developers, we are not assistive technology trainers, and we are not assistive technology users. We need to make sure that our projects work with assistive technologies, but it is not out responsibility to educate people how to use our assistive technologies.
Would you chase after a wheelchair user and point out to him that he would've been able to mount that kerb if he'd been using fatter treads? No. What you might do, is point out to the council that a particular street doesn't have dropped kerbs, or if the wheelchair user is having difficulty with a street, you might point out that there's a dropped kerb at the other end.
A website with information about assistive technologies and thoughts and hints on how to use AT - including and probably most suitable to the manufacturer's site - would be a good place to talk about best use of AT. A website about leather sofas shouldn't get involved, other than to present the accessibility features of the site.
_________________
Kajun
Share:
| Kajun wrote: |
| Would you chase after a wheelchair user and point out to him that he would've been able to mount that kerb if he'd been using fatter treads? |
I'd like to see that!
Share:
Yes, he didn't bother with access keys.
Screen readers have built-in functions for skipping to the next heading or list or whatever. My guess is that non-sighted users don't care much about access keys. The thing that worried me was that access keys would cause problems for AT users if they got in the way of the AT's built-in accelerators.
Access keys could be useful for people with certain types of motor impairment, and in environments where a mouse cannot be used. I don't think they're primarily beneficial to non-sighted users.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
I thought that might be the case. I've seen vision impaired users smile sweetly at their inclusion, but I've yet to see anyone use them.
You'll find the same senario with motor deficient users too.
I was told they are far too unreliable. No defined standards, causing various keys used on various sites.
I could only concur.
mike 2k:)2
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum