Log in   Register a New Account

Accessify Forum - Discuss Website Accessibility

New to the forum?

Only an email address is required.

Register Here

Already registered? Log In

Rolling Rampage

  • Reply to topic
  • Post new topic
Reply with quote In relation to my recent Accessify post, what do you lot think? Is Rolling Rampage accessible for low vision users?

Cheers,
Nigel

Accessify Forum Administrator ~ Nigel Peck / Starstream
"Everything I say is not meant to be set in stone" - Van Morrison
Reply with quote As it originally stands - no, the contrast is very narrow. BUT since CSS is an optional presentational suggestion - yes, it is accessible (just disable the stylesheet).
Reply with quote I agree, but how many low vision users do this? or would want to do this?

It would make it a very boring experience if they viewed the web with css disabled, and is that not discrimination?

We get the pleasure of a nice design but they don't because they can't read it (but can see it) so they have to switch css off?

Cheers,
Nigel

Accessify Forum Administrator ~ Nigel Peck / Starstream
"Everything I say is not meant to be set in stone" - Van Morrison
Reply with quote In its current incarnation, I'd say that it falls well short of accessible. The low contrast makes the text difficult to read. It's resizable, but that doesn't help all that much.

The fixed with makes it inaccessible (as far as I can see) to small screen devices such PDAs and cell phones.

On a 1280x1024 TFT, it looks quite strange, but that's more of an aesthetic issue than an accessibility problem, I suppose. Smile

/Tommy

Tommy has left the building
Reply with quote
Nigel Peck wrote:
I agree, but how many low vision users do this? or would want to do this?


It is a technique a visually impaired user could use on any CSS layout website. Its something that can be done in a bookmarklet. As to "want to do this" - that would depend on whether they wanted to access the content or marvel at a web design.

Nigel Peck wrote:
It would make it a very boring experience if they viewed the web with css disabled, and is that not discrimination?


Which is more important: accessing the content, or looking at a nice looking website? If I read the DDA, it covers websites offering a service or communicating to the public. I don't feel that the design of a website - which is optional - falls into that remit. Is a boring but accessible experience no better than a frustrating and ultimately failed experience?

I've received a few emails from people working with visually disabled people, and the common fact that gets mentioned is that visually disabled people tend to surf the web with font-sizes at least 240% bigger than the default. IMO, only a one column layout could reliably deal with font-sizes exceeding that. It is in these situations where I believe that the ability to disable stylesheets is a good thing for visitors. A CSS based design gives a visually impaired visitor more options to get access to the content - by eliminating a potential barrier to access - the website design.

The design of a website is supposed to complement the content - the content should be able to exist in a meaningful state without the styles.
Reply with quote I agree, the content is more important that the design.

However in this case having a slight change in the design would mean that a visually impaired user would be able to enjoy both the content and the design, and surely that is the most desirable situation. Why not access the content and marvel at the design at the same time, as others can.

I'm not making this point in the terms of any legislation or standards, I'm saying in the spirit of Accessibility, wouldn't it be better to make the small changes necessary for this site to be enjoyed 'out of the box' by visually impaired users?

Cheers,
Nigel

Accessify Forum Administrator ~ Nigel Peck / Starstream
"Everything I say is not meant to be set in stone" - Van Morrison
Reply with quote Try reading the Rampage with images turned-off the contrast is even worse "faint silver on white".

I more or less stand alongside Nigel and yes not just the visually impaired have issues with reading such designs.

};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/

WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Reply with quote
Nigel Peck wrote:
I agree, the content is more important that the design.

However in this case having a slight change in the design would mean that a visually impaired user would be able to enjoy both the content and the design, and surely that is the most desirable situation. Why not access the content and marvel at the design at the same time, as others can.


i hear you nigel, but just to play devil's advocate: it's difficult talking about design (as it is just a subjective thing) and saying that something is a "slight" change.
and to take an example from the print world: terms & conditions, the "small print", traditionally is that...a very small bit of text, often with low contrast (as to reasons why this is done beyond the purely aesthetic ones - trying to hide facts from people etc - nonwithstanding). a "slight change" in that context could for instance mean "why don't we do all our printed material in large print from the start, so we won't have to print a separate version of it for people with low vision".

personally, i feel that - although it might not be the panacea that some people are treating it as - style switching / alternate stylesheets are a very valid way of ensuring at least baseline accessibility.

Patrick H. Lauke / splintered
Reply with quote I agree the designer may not see it as a slight change, but what I am saying when I say that is that the essence of the design could be kept while giving the text an improved contrast.

Cheers,
Nigel

Accessify Forum Administrator ~ Nigel Peck / Starstream
"Everything I say is not meant to be set in stone" - Van Morrison
Reply with quote
Isofarro wrote:
As it originally stands - no, the contrast is very narrow. BUT since CSS is an optional presentational suggestion - yes, it is accessible (just disable the stylesheet).


How? I have no idea how to turn of the CSS, and I would suspect many others lack the knowledge too.

I feel the text/background contrast is letting the site down as is the fixed image behind the scrolling text. It produces a confusing background that some users may find very difficult to differentiate the text.

Great photo's

Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Reply with quote
Mikea wrote:
How? I have no idea how to turn of the CSS, and I would suspect many others lack the knowledge too.


Until browsers have it closer to hand, use a disable stylesheet bookmarklet. This works on quite a few moden browsers. After you've bookmarket it, just copy it over to your quick toolbar.
Reply with quote
Mikea wrote:
How? I have no idea how to turn of the CSS, and I would suspect many others lack the knowledge too.


Although this option in Opera is a single click away, given the percentage of users who don't use Opera, it doesn't really matter how easy it is because the other 99% are using a browser for which this feature takes more effort.

I have always believed that when you put a background image and correspondingly, change the text color restore readability, you should back up the background image with a background color of a similar tone so that when images are disabled, the background color comes into play. This process would not have affected this design at all because with images enabled, one would not see the background color so the asthetics of the design would be preserved.

As someone whose only visual disability is a need for glasses for reading, I don't have a problem with the text/background color contrast but others will. As many have expressed better than I, accessibility is more than just for the blind so I agree that if the contrast is measurably below the standard (I believe gez has a contrast tester on his site), then it should be fixed.

From a usability point of view, I don't like the way that the web page (home page) cuts off below the bottom of my 1280x1024 screen - it made me think that my download had been interupted. I also don't like scrolled content, even if it is created using overflow:scroll. I agree with TOOLman about the fixed width of the page - that is a no-no and I think it contravenes one of the A or AA points in the WCAG.

However, much like CSS Zen Garden, it is an example of how CSS actually improves design possibilities, not hinder them.

A couple of tweaks and my concerns would be satisfied.

Jules
Reply with quote Well, I wrote it and I thank you all for your input.
Joe Clarke had already mentioned the "text over picture" and contrast issues and had suggested a stylesheet-switcher as a solution.
With that and the responses here I have pulled my thumb out and added one. Any suggestions as to the most useful colour schemes would be appreciated.
As to the fixed width/height, it's serving in 3 different resolutions at the moment (640, 800, and 1024) with the layout blocked out by divs and fixed in place with absolute positioning.
Done because I like it that way and because that background will look awful if I start to float things out to different widths.
As a solution I'm tending towards adding 1280 as a supported resolution and then floating the whole thing to the center of any other resolutions.
As with the first issue any other suggestions/solutions that preserve the original look would be appreciated.

Thanks

MC
Reply with quote
Jules wrote:
Mikea wrote:
How? I have no idea how to turn of the CSS, and I would suspect many others lack the knowledge too.


Although this option in Opera is a single click away, given the percentage of users who don't use Opera, it doesn't really matter how easy it is because the other 99% are using a browser for which this feature takes more effort.


This is a bogus argument - I've already pointed to a bookmarklet that does the same thing for other browsers and this bookmarklet can be dropped on a quick link toolbar so that its only one click away, just like Opera.
Reply with quote Relax, people. The event the Rolling Rampage site is advertising is four months away. That gives Michael rather a lot of time to add a stylesheet-switcher and a few other desirable features.

As usual, an entire site is dismissed if it's missing the single dealbreaker feature that cantankerous critics demand.

Display posts from previous:   

Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT

  • Reply to topic
  • Post new topic