accessibile sites "must work in non-javascript browsers
Nope, just on the words access, accessible and accessiblity for this bit. Accessibility is not only about the web.
However I've said my bit, you disagree, I really don't care and I think it's time to put this one to bed before it degenerates even more into handbags at 5 paces territory.
Share: 
| monkeygod wrote: |
| whilst they are not disability problems, the are accessibility problems |
Not in the context of web accessibility.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| Firstly, why is Lynx the only choice of browser you have available? |
I didn't say that it was, but why shouldn't I be allowed to use it? Accessibility is about making a site accessible. A 'Best viewed in…' statement doesn't go very well along with that in my opinion.
| Isofarro wrote: |
| None of the above are accessibility problems, nor even classed as a disability under any legislation I've seen. |
No, but they are one of the reasons why I like to use Lynx, because it's so much faster than most graphical browsers. I'm now mostly using Opera which allows me to turn off images, plug-ins and JavaScript very easily, but that has nothing to do with this.
If you create a web page that requires client-side scripting, you're creating an inaccessible site. Period.
(Besides, 'ajax' uses XMLHttpRequest which is not in any standard AFAIK.)
Tommy has left the building
Share:
Sorry not quite finished 
This link might be of interest now we are off track
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: | ||
I didn't say that it was, but why shouldn't I be allowed to use it? |
You can choose to use it if you want, you just can't use it as an excuse for claiming sites are inaccessible, when they are accessible to other available technology. Plus using lynx is not considered a disability.
Share:
| Richard Conyard wrote: |
| Sorry not quite finished
This link might be of interest now we are off track
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/ |
Its a good demonstration of your superficial understanding of the subject.
The article refers to the W3C accessibility checkpoints, which themselves are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. I see there's no mention of the Cambridge Dictionary definition - that doesn't surprise me.
Note that the referenced W3C guidelines contain the following in the Abstract to the document:
| Quote: |
| These guidelines explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. The guidelines are intended for all Web content developers (page authors and site designers) and for developers of authoring tools. The primary goal of these guidelines is to promote accessibility. |
Its quite clear - "accessible to people with disabilities". The paragraph continues to explain additional benefits of following these guidelines include making content more available to all users. This is nothing but an incidentary benefit, and not the primary goal of WCAG - which is the only independent specification relating to web accessibility.
You will find that all other established accessibility guidelines derive or extend from the WCAG1.0 specification. There is no question that when it comes to web accessibility, the WAI is the main resource on the topic.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| You can choose to use it if you want, you just can't use it as an excuse for claiming sites are inaccessible, when they are accessible to other available technology. |
Ah, so it's OK to design a site for IE6 and 1024x768 then? I mean both are acessible if you happen to have that technology.
| Isofarro wrote: |
| Plus using lynx is not considered a disability. |
What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that accessibility is only about disabilities? It's about not putting up barriers. That goes for people (disabilities) and technology (devices).
Tommy has left the building
Share:
Exactly - accessibility is not specifically about people with disabilities - it's about everyone, and anything that might get between them and being able to access information.
I might have trouble with a site because I'm blind, deaf, or unable to use my hands; or I might have trouble with a site because I'm poor and all I can afford is old computer running red hat 2; or I might have trouble because I'm in a netcafe using a browser where JS is disabled for some reason, and I don't have authorisation to change any settings.
All of these may be factors beyond my control - and that's the point. Accessibility is about catering for people who have to deal with barriers they can't necessarily help. It's about doing as much as you can to ensure that you don't put up barriers yourself.
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: |
|
Ah, so it's OK to design a site for IE6 and 1024x768 then? I mean both are acessible if you happen to have that technology. |
Blind people cannot see images. To make image content accessible to blind people, the images need textual equivalents. Deaf people cannot hear a podcast, so textual equivalents are needed for an mp3 track. Colourblind people cannot differentiate between certain colours, so either those colour combinations should not be used as a means to provide information, or another mechanism, that doesn't rely on colour, should be used to provide that information. People with motor-related disabilities need bigger clickable regions - so for the time being allowing the font-size to increase, and creating larger clickable regions benefits this group. These are the sample barriers we concern ourselves about - where a disability of a person is the barrier they themselves cannot remove.
If a website is designed for IE6 and 1024x768 and creates no barriers to people with disabilities, then it is accessible.
| Toolman wrote: | ||
What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that accessibility is only about disabilities? |
Yes, the WCAG specification - both WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0 - both mention people with disabilities as the primary aim of the document.
| Toolman wrote: |
| It's about not putting up barriers. That goes for people (disabilities) and technology (devices). |
People with disabilities who can't access content because of their disability is where the focus of accessibility is. When people with disabilities chose not to use available technology that makes content accessible to them, that is not an accessibility problem.
Last edited by Isofarro on 18 Jun 2005 04:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Share:
| brothercake wrote: |
| Exactly - accessibility is not specifically about people with disabilities - it's about everyone, and anything that might get between them and being able to access information. |
And your references to a technical specification that back this statement up is? (I've previously provided a reference to the WCAG1.0, can you provide something just as well established in the field of web accessibility?)
| Quote: |
| or I might have trouble with a site because I'm poor and all I can afford is old computer running red hat 2; |
This is not a web accessibility problem. Welcome to the concept of the free market. Its not a web developers fault that hardware and software are more expensive than your income. Price is not a web accessibility issue.
| Quote: |
| or I might have trouble because I'm in a netcafe using a browser where JS is disabled for some reason, and I don't have authorisation to change any settings. |
Your choice of browsing location is not a web accessibility problem.
| Quote: |
| All of these may be factors beyond my control - and that's the point. |
Factors are beyond control are characteristics of not being able to see images because you are blind. Currently _no_ technology is capable of rendering an image to a blind person. That is why we provide equivalent content to images in the form of alternative text, a longdesc, a title, text preceeding or proceeding the image. There is a side-effect of this method of providing the content of the image to browsers like Lynx, but this is not the reason why providing alternate equivalent textual content for images is required. It is required for blind people who cannot, because of their blindness, see an image.
Blindness, deafness, cognitive disabilities, motor-related impairments these are all factors that cannot be changed. Chosing a text-only browser, chosing a cafe with locked down browsers, chosing old hardware - these are all factors that can be changed.
Accessibility is about catering for people who have to deal with barriers they can't necessarily help. It's about doing as much as you can to ensure that you don't put up barriers yourself.[/quote]
Share:
I would suggest that the WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines make specific reference to people with disabilities as being the focus of these guidelines simply because, at the time the guidelines were originally written, the needs of these people were being ignored. The focus at the time in web design circles was largely on the problems caused by the differences between how Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator implemented HTML and rendered pages. That was leading to calls for greater adherence to standards (both browser implementation standards and coding standards) and out of that came a realisation that there was a need for guidelines that incorporated not just "standard" technology differences but also the additional needs of people with disabilities.
However "accessibility" can be defined, I guess, in several different ways, depending on how we approach it.
From a legal perspective, the focus is inevitably on the needs of people with disabilities rather than on the wider issues relating to differences in the hardware and software being used to access the web, since there are, in a growing number of countries, laws which relate to how people with disabilities can and can't be treated, but no laws that I know of which say you can't discriminated against someone because of the browser they use, if they don't have a disability which constrains their choice of browsing technology.
On the other hand, I'd suggest that "accessibility" is more than "just" ensuring that people with disabilities are not disadvantaged because of how a site or page is designed - it's about ensuring that anyone who visits the page or the site can actually use it, without limiting that use only to those using a particular technology. It might look very different on different platforms, and might function in slightly different ways on different platforms, but the underlying principle of accessibility is surely to maximise the ability of all users to actually be able to use the Web and access the information and services available on the Web.
It's actually quite interesting to see disability accessibility, once presented and perceived as an extension of basic standards compliance and browser accessibility, now being presented as the core part of accessibility, with other platform related issues being regarded by some as peripheral!
Donna
Share:
as unpopular as isofarro is seemingly making himself here, i share his general vision of, if i may, "the onus is also on the user".
if i choose (or, through circumstances, am forced) to use Mosaic, for instance, any site that is "virtualhosted" (same IP serving different domains) will be inaccessible to me, as Mosaic only understands HTTP 1.0 and not HTTP 1.1. could i reasonably complain that i'm being discriminated against if you don't set up your site on its own exclusive IP address?
if i use a 5 year old screenreader which does not take advantage of any of the more advanced HTML spec accessibility hooks (e.g. it does not expose longdesc to me), am i being discriminated against if a site follows the spec and assumes the user agent will also follow them?
interesting that we've now moved into what i see as a new phase of the accessibility discourse...
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:
| redux wrote: |
| as unpopular as isofarro is seemingly making himself here |
I sincerely hope not! isofarro has a lot of good stuff to say, and hopefully we can disagree on some aspects of the subject without falling out.
| redux wrote: |
| i share his general vision of, if i may, "the onus is also on the user" |
I'd agree with that, but only up to a point.
| redux wrote: |
| if i choose (or, through circumstances, am forced) to use Mosaic, for instance, any site that is "virtualhosted" (same IP serving different domains) will be inaccessible to me, as Mosaic only understands HTTP 1.0 and not HTTP 1.1. could i reasonably complain that i'm being discriminated against if you don't set up your site on its own exclusive IP address?
if i use a 5 year old screenreader which does not take advantage of any of the more advanced HTML spec accessibility hooks (e.g. it does not expose longdesc to me), am i being discriminated against if a site follows the spec and assumes the user agent will also follow them? |
For me, I think the issue comes down to how much choice is available on either side of these "transactions", and revolves around social questions of what should or should not be done to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots.
To what extent is the website developer/owner *choosing* to do things one way rather an another, or is constrained because of circumstance? And to what extent is the user *choosing* to use one browser rather than an another, or is constrained because of circumstance?
So, for example, if I am using a 5 year old browser because I'm used to it and, while I could easily afford to upgrade, I choose not to, then the fact that some sites are going to be inaccessible because they use recent developments in technology that my browser can't handle is something I've presumably considered and decided I'm willing to accept.
However, if I am using a 5 year old browser because I'm poor and simply can't afford to upgrade my hardware and software to more recent stuff, I'm probably already facing a lot of disadvantages in society. If some sites are inaccessible to me because the very nature of the content means the site *has* to use technologies that my screen reader can't handle and for which there are no alternatives, then maybe that's something I just have to live with. However if other sites are inaccessible to me because the developers have *chosen* not to incorporate the alternatives that would make that site accessible to my older software, is that fair?
I think it's the extent to which choices are available and being consciously made that determines whether or not it's reasonable to construct a site one way or another re accessibility or to complain about a site being inaccessible.
Hope that made some sort of sense...
Donna
Share:
Donna, great post. Glad to see you are lurking around - we don't see enough of you, busy as you are!
| dms wrote: | ||
I'd agree with that, but only up to a point. |
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.
| dms wrote: |
| To what extent is the website developer/owner *choosing* to do things one way rather an another, or is constrained because of circumstance? And to what extent is the user *choosing* to use one browser rather than an another, or is constrained because of circumstance? |
Yes, if the user constraint is because of their disability, then there is an obligation on the web developer to remove the barrier he has created. If its just on the choice of browser by the user, and there is an alternative he could use, then its the obligation of the user - I doubt any court would see that as being unreasonable. (Although it has yet to be tested).
| dms wrote: |
| So, for example, if I am using a 5 year old browser because I'm used to it and, while I could easily afford to upgrade, I choose not to, then the fact that some sites are going to be inaccessible because they use recent developments in technology that my browser can't handle is something I've presumably considered and decided I'm willing to accept. |
Agreed.
| dms wrote: |
| However, if I am using a 5 year old browser because I'm poor and simply can't afford to upgrade my hardware and software to more recent stuff, I'm probably already facing a lot of disadvantages in society. If some sites are inaccessible to me because the very nature of the content means the site *has* to use technologies that my screen reader can't handle and for which there are no alternatives, then maybe that's something I just have to live with. However if other sites are inaccessible to me because the developers have *chosen* not to incorporate the alternatives that would make that site accessible to my older software, is that fair? |
There's a couple of issues going on here:
* If the user can't afford to upgrade - is that an issue web developers should be tackling?
My opinion - if you've written to a publically available standard, no.
An interesting legal test would be: a user with an old screen reader facing a site that is inaccessible to them. If that website is written to webstandards, and accessibility standards, and is accessible in more modern screen readers (and that screen reader is available to them, and will be usable to him), does the user actually have a legal leg to stand on in a disability discrimination claim? I would say no, since the discrimination is not owing to the nature of their disability, but to their choice of software. Is it reasonable to expect users to upgrade their software - considering the number of people using Windows XP, I'd say yes.
* Can a website use a different technology for delivering content where that content can be made accessible using available tools.
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.
| dms wrote: |
| I think it's the extent to which choices are available and being consciously made that determines whether or not it's reasonable to construct a site one way or another re accessibility or to complain about a site being inaccessible. |
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.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| If a website is designed for IE6 and 1024x768 and creates no barriers to people with disabilities, then it is accessible. |
<Adds Isofarro to ignore list/>
Tommy has left the building
Share: