The Web - Access and Inclusion for Disabled People - Discuss

[H3LL]

This is a subject that I feel is important and worthy of discussion and want to leave the thread pretty open on content. That's up to you.

Just for starters:

There is a report available that sheds some light on where the thinking is going in the UK at least.

The Web - Access and Inclusion for Disabled People (http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/2.pdf) (PDF Format)

It also raises issues with regard to W3C compliance. They have their Web Access Initiative (WAI) available here (http://www.w3.org/WAI/).

I'm curious how the USA and the EU are approaching this and would also be interested in how the JREF will be dealing with these issues.

Although the technology is available (discussion on what would also be nice) web designers are slow to follow. To paraphrase a comment made by a designer on these boards, "The customer didn't ask so it was not done". Will this leave the only option local legislation? Why are some web designers slow to add value to their work?

Feel free to raise any issue of your own that you think is worthy.

Additional relevant reports or weblinks would be appreciated as would opinions.

If this takes off, I will collect what we have as a resource for all.

Thanks.

[Donks]

Originally posted by H3LL
I'm curious how the USA and the EU are approaching this
I hope they approach it by keeping their hands off the web.
and would also be interested in how the JREF will be dealing with these issues.
I hope all websites try their best to make the website accessible to all who want to view it, but if they don't want to, I don't want anyone to force them.
Will this leave the only option local legislation?
Who's local legislation? The designer? The customer? The webhost owner? The site where the actual computer is? The place where the disabled user is?
Why are some web designers slow to add value to their work?
Because it is not being asked of them? If the customer doesn't ask for it, should web designers put work into it, without getting paid for it?

[scribble]

Originally posted by H3LL
To paraphrase a comment made by a designer on these boards, "The customer didn't ask so it was not done". Will this leave the only option local legislation? Why are some web designers slow to add value to their work?


That's not a fair question. The designer made the correct response.

As far as my own website goes, my time is limited. I can choose between a project like adding a new reporting feature that 75% of my customers will benefit from, or I can spend that same time redesigning everything to be accessable to the blind.

Guess what percentage of my customers the latter would benefit.

That's right, none at all.

Now, as a matter of fact, I personally like to be able to use Lynx to browse, and I also use a lot of low-speed connections (like from my PDA) to browse content without graphics. Therefore I have an entire "skin" for my system that has no graphics and would be perfectly blind accessable.

The first time someone blind actually uses my system, I'll give them access to it. All they have to do is ask.

Keep your filthy legislation away from *MY* systems. I'll run them how I see fit. If I didn't have that stuff in place and I didn't want to cater to a blind person then I should accept the penalties that are natural: I would lose that customer, or not even get his business in the first place.

And that should be my decision.

-Chris

[sophia8]

It's not just "The Blind" who need accessible websites.
The colour-blind can't see certain combinations of foreground/background colours;
Those with reduced eyesight can't separate out certain tones of colour;
Others with reduced eyesight have to have ways of enlarging the font size in their browser;
Those with reduced hand mobility can't use a mouse, so they need tabbed navigation links.
Etc.
Unless you're selling to a very narrow audience (18-35yr old snowboarders, for instance), some of your potential customers are going to include the above.
Heck, it's quite likely you'll find yourself included in one of the above catagories, some day - you just have to get old, suffer a disease or have an accident.
Making your sites accessible is NOT a matter of being forced to follow some evil government diktat - it's a matter of having some care and respect for your fellow human beings.

ETA: I'm pretty sure I've posted these links here before, but here goes again:
SitePoint's Accessibility Links (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=92648)
AccessibleNet.org (http://www.accessiblenet.org/)
Accessify.com (http://www.accessify.com/default.asp)
Accessify.com is a UK site, so you should be able to find stuff on UK/EU law on accessibility there.

[Donks]

Originally posted by sophia8
Others with reduced eyesight have to have ways of enlarging the font size in their browser;
Isn't this a pretty standard function in modern browsers?

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Donks
Isn't this a pretty standard function in modern browsers?
Yes - in the latest browsers. Not always so in the older ones. In any case, specifying absolute font sizes in the code can sometimes override this browser function.

[Donks]

Originally posted by sophia8
Yes - in the latest browsers. Not always so in the older ones. In any case, specifying absolute font sizes in the code can sometimes override this browser function.
I thought it was the other way around. The browser usually has the option to override text size as well as text, links, and background colors. Though I'll admit I don't use these functions, so I could likely be wrong.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sophia8



Making your sites accessible is NOT a matter of being forced to follow some evil government diktat ...

It is if you ARE being forced...:)

[scribble]

Originally posted by sophia8
It's not just "The Blind" who need accessible websites.


No, but they make a great example since 99% of the cases of web-accessability are covered if you make it accessable to the blind. For instance:


The colour-blind can't see certain combinations of foreground/background colours;


But they'll do fine on a site for the blind.


Those with reduced eyesight can't separate out certain tones of colour;


But they'd do fine on a site designed for the blind as well.


Others with reduced eyesight have to have ways of enlarging the font size in their browser;


And they'd do fine with a site designed for the blind (or just about any site; my browser can change font sizes for me *even if the designer of the site neglected to use relative sizes*).


Those with reduced hand mobility can't use a mouse, so they need tabbed navigation links.


And blind people don't (generally) mouse, either. So OK.


Etc.


Exactly. That's why I say "the blind." It's easier than spelling out all the different types of disabilities.


Unless you're selling to a very narrow audience (18-35yr old snowboarders, for instance), some of your potential customers are going to include the above.

Heck, it's quite likely you'll find yourself included in one of the above catagories, some day - you just have to get old, suffer a disease or have an accident.


Well, if and when that happens, it'll be really easy for me to ask the designer to make it more accessable. :)


Making your sites accessible is NOT a matter of being forced to follow some evil government diktat


That was H3ll's proposal that I was responding to.


- it's a matter of having some care and respect for your fellow human beings.


Again, to use a specific example, I can respect 75% of my users at once by adding a new report, or I can use that same time and respect 0% of my users (so far as I am aware) to put in some "accessability features."

It's because I *do* respect and care for my customers that I *don't* waste time making my stuff accessable to the blind.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Donks
I thought it was the other way around. The browser usually has the option to override text size as well as text, links, and background colors. Though I'll admit I don't use these functions, so I could likely be wrong.

The browser does have that ability... but that's not what he was saying is the problem.

When you specify a font size in HTML, you can either give an exact size, like 10 or 12, or you can give a relative size, like -3 or +3. In old, crufty browsers, when you ask the browser to override the text size for you, it would only change the fonts that used relative sizes, but not the ones that used an exact or absolute size. Those would remain the same. It was due to the browser programmers not thinking things though.

To be fair, I haven't seen a browser with that problem in years. (I haven't seen IE in years either though so I'm not the best judge of what's common.)

[H3LL]

Gosh! Such vitriol and I'm less than impressed with many comments so far.

I was intending to open up the thread for discussion on the topic. Maybe I should have left off any comments.

None of them are my proposals, I'm curious as to where that idea came from.

It would seem something that is happening and may gain pace. Whether you like it or not, if a government says it will become required and you want to work for them you have no choice.

If a government makes it a requirement for businesses to provide disabled web access, again you will have no choice if you wish to work for them..

As with disabled access to buildings, the private sector did little or nothing. As with some attitudes here; "The customer didn't ask". "I'm not doing it for nothing". "The number of people that will benefit is too small". "Let the disabled sort it out themselves where they need it" helped little. As a result, rules and regulation came into force, many of them with little consideration for the businesses and some poor and inflexible rules to-boot.

My guess is the past experience of disabled groups which lack economic clout of their own to drive change will turn to lobbying government to make the changes. That seems to be the case with this issue.

Lazy coding such as missing 'alt' tags (the browser's fuctions are little help in this instance), blaming the customer, whining about government and regulations when doing nothing yourself does nothing constructive and IMO shows poor vision and limited business acumen.

This situation presents opportunity to add value to your work. Competing on price is always hard and this may (or may not) present the opportunity to offer something not offered elsewhere, presented as preparation for possible changes and showing that one is in-touch with what is happening.

For a snow-boarding web site, they perhaps couldn't care less about disabled access. That shows their ignorance and stupidity. I seem to recall a particularly good bit of disabled snow-boarding in the film "Shallow Hal". This is particularly apposite as their shallowness is only matched by the shallowness of some designers it would seem.

Larger corporate systems will have a much larger customer base and the disabled will be significant both as customers and as a positive marketing image.

It would be better if the discussion proceeded in a more positive and constructive manner looking at opportunities, critically examining the proposals for flaws, discussing its business impact and how soon, if at all, it will become a significant issue in web design.

This is an issue that is unlikely to go away any time soon.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by scribble
That's not a fair question. The designer made the correct response.

I'm not picking on scribble, as there are many that think the same, but I would like to say something on this issue.

It is not the correct response, and frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing it year after year, day after day.

For a customer to employ anyone to perform a skilled task is because that customer lacks the skill or time. It they had it, they would often do it themselves.

It is not up to the customer to guess what might be needed in domain for which they may have limited or no knowledge.

It should be up to the vendor to offer solutions to the customer's needs, explain in comprehensible terms the appropriate benefits and allow the customer to chose which to have from an informed position.

Anything less is poor work at best and sharp practice at worst.

A Standish Group research report shows a staggering 31.1% of projects will be canceled before they ever get completed. Further results indicate 52.7% of projects will cost 189% of their original estimates......

...In the larger companies, the news is even worse: only 9% of their projects come in on time and on budget. And, even when these projects are completed, many are no more than a mere shadow of their original specification requirements.

Much of this failure is due to the very attitude stated.

[Wudang]

in Zeldman's "Designing with web standards" he mentions US Section 508 which apparently applies. He also claims that WAI Priority 1 is easily achieved with a little forethought and work. In a rush before work but he mentions
www.w3.org/WAI/GL
and recommends
"Building accessible web sites" Joe Clark (New Riders:2002)
"Constructing accessible web sites" various (Glasshaus:2002)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by H3LL
Gosh! Such vitriol and I'm less than impressed with many comments so far.

I was intending to open up the thread for discussion on the topic. Maybe I should have left off any comments.



Yep, pushed the wrong buttons there. I know server blind people, and they don't see the issue as one where they'll just take it lying down.

While it is everyones right to make a web site the way they want it, if you are running a public web service, then you have an obligation to make it navigable by blind people, and if you ignore blind people, you are ignoring a lot more people than you realise. There are a lot of people out there with vision issues who don't walk around with a cane.

[H3LL]

I found quite a good web site assessment tool.

WatchFire - WebXact (http://webxact.watchfire.com/)

Just enter a URL and you get quite a good report.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by scribble

It's because I *do* respect and care for my customers that I *don't* waste time making my stuff accessable to the blind.
So how do you know that there are no potential customers amongst the visually impaired? (i'm not being PC here - it's easier than saying "everyone with severe sight problems, including total blindess".) And if you're a professional web designer, you should know making a site accessible takes no more time than making one that's not accessible; it's just a matter of coding intelligently.
You should be making your sites accessible NOT because the evil oppressive fascist guvmint tells you to, but because:
1) it's good commercial sense;
2) it's a polite, considerate thing to do - like opening a door for someone on crutches;
3) accessible sites are readable on just about any web-enabled gadget - PDAs, mobiles, TV etc.
4) it doesn't cost a thing;
5) it's hardly rocket science!

I've had tussles with US web designers on web design forums on the subject of accessibility, and the disregard - contempt even - for the disabled displayed by a minority is bloody depressing. I'm old enough to remember the 1960s and the Civil Rights struggles; the anti-disabled remarks that I've come across reminds me strongly of the rascist rhetoric that was flung about then. "I don't want blind people on my site!" was one response.

As disability campaigners have pointed out many times, most web designers are young and healthy, and therefore totally unaware of the problems faced by the disabled. It's my experience that most of them are happy to make their sites accessible once the need is pointed out to them. What none of them have ever realised (and, not unnaturally, find hard to grasp even when they're told it) is that they are all potentially disabled persons - it only takes an accident, a virus, an act of violence or just the passage of time, for anybody to become severly disabled.

[Rat]

I kind of feel for both sides here. I wouldn't dream of building a site that wasn't fully accessible. html is a language that describes language; if you use it to describe layout, you are misusing it. That's what css is for. And to allow for disability in css is easy enough.

That said, I have (once) had to build a site that was not to my design, and there was no way in a million years that it could be built in an accessible way without including a redirect for screenreaders, etc., and there's no way that the employer would have wanted that.

Cheers,
Rat.