RE: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Excellent analogy! As a person who supports assistive technology for our companies users, I would expand the process to include the makers of the OS that the browser runs on, not to mention hardware makers, video driver writers, the assistive technology developers, etc. All must cooperate. Sadly, they hardly do. So, whether you're talking accessibility to people with disabilities or just old/bad browsers, the developer of the web app must pick up the slack so users aren't excluded. I'm all for nudging people to upgrade to the latest versions, however, even if it's IE (which I'm forced to use at work, but at least it's v.6). I know, I've drifted off-topic... Christopher Kelly (GM22) phone: 309-763-7069 State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility Hi all, Jumping in on all these architectural analogies... nobody seems to have made this point: ultimately EVERYONE has some level of responsibility, since everyone is and will remain involed. Let's continue the analogy, for a new building: 1) The government sets out physical access requirements for buildings in broad terms (there are also other bodies which produce building standards but we'll keep this simple). Web equivalent is the W3C. Their responsibility is to get the standards right and communicate them in such a manner that people know what to do. They also need to keep things in the realm of possibility - W3C has a checkpoint to ensure that a proposed standard is actually possible, governments do not specify that venues provide levitating wheelchairs. 2) The architects (and possibly structural engineers) have to interpret the standards and apply them correctly in the design for the building. They will have to find the balance between the goals of the building and the many standards the building will have to meet. They also have to make sure the building won't fall down ;) The architect will probably also have to wrangle the interior decorators to ensure their wonderful additions don't contravene critical requirements. The web equivalent is the web developer, who has to sit between the client, the W3C, the graphic designer and the application developers/programmers. Some people might call this the Web Producer, but most of us don't get the lofty title nor the lofty pay ;) 3) Then the builders/tradespeople come into the picture. They are responsible for the actual physical creation of the building according to the plan. If they don't follow the plan they have failed in their own responsibility (ignoring the legal horrors of real-world architecture). Web equivalent is the web/application developer(s) who actually put the whole thing together. 4) The government inspects and enforces the standards. This area is starting to take shape for the web, with test cases appearing in various countries. It is a very weak area, though. 5) Then the public comes into the building. They will be arriving in wheelchairs which don't levitate, shoes with no grip, they might be drunk, who knows. Nobody who built the place can make them all wear decent shoes (so they don't slip on the stairs) nor can they make everyone's wheelchair levitate. Ultimately people should be allowed to choose whatever shoes they wear. But, they also have to accept falling down if they turn up drunk wearing shoes with no grip. The shoe/wheelchair manufacturers might be grossly negligent but they'll get away with it. Just like browser manufacturers get away with failure to comply with standards. No matter how well any one group/individual conforms to the overall goals; they will always have a responsibility since their part of the process must still be done well. Even if wheelchairs do start levitating, buildings will have to be designed and built with enough space allowed for them to fly around. Nobody will ever become free of responsibility. So 1) The W3C will always have to make good standards and update them. 2) Clients will always have to resource projects well enough to facilitate compliance. 3) Web developers will always have to apply standards properly. 4) User Agent manufacturers will always have to conform to standards. 5) Users will always have to maintain a reasonable level of technology to make use of the standards. The problem right now? Only (1) and (3) are currently happening with any level of success; with (3) carrying the hardest tasks. It's unfair but life is not fair. That's why web developers and architects like to go to the pub ;) h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
I don't know how to word this, but here goes... We have the W3C's WCAG and Section 508...however, WCAG is just a set of guidelines; Section 508 applies to US federal agencies. I'm not asking that we legislate this (heaven forbid!) for the Web at large, but it seems there isn't yet a *widely accepted* standard that people are saying we ought to use? I recently wanted to view a news video on the MSN site (there's always hope!), and I have my setting for captions/subtitling to be shown when available in the Windows Media Player that I have installed. Unfortunately, it seems the producers of the Web videos forget to include the subtitling /captioning, or the Windows Media Player isn't including the captions when the movie is downloaded, or whatever the case may be. Being deaf, I rely on whatever I can read in text along with the facial expressions and body language that I can see in order to get the information that is being presented. I have repeatedly submitted feedback saying things like videos look great, but can't you caption them? Of course I'm sure these companies get scads of feedback and are too busy to be bothered to reply with even a got your note, thanks, we'll look into it. We have a long, long way to go to achieve true accessibility in the world. Even I have much to learn and more to do... So, what do we do here? How accessible should we be, to achieve the ideal? Leslie Riggs ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Ok, I see your point here, but I'm the web designer for a company. Most of our customers probably wouldn't know what a 'browser' is and think that the 'e' is the is only way to 'download the internet'. I can't simply forget my customers browsers without alienating them as well, because they have no clue what the issues are. Tom Livingston wrote: Giving users a reasonable time to upgrade to the latest-- and hopefully best-- version of the browser of their choice, and then simply forgetting to code for the older versions, is one way we can push (a little) where it matters. Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Alan Trick wrote: Ok, I see your point here, but I'm the web designer for a company. Most of our customers probably wouldn't know what a 'browser' is and think that the 'e' is the is only way to 'download the internet'. I can't simply forget my customers browsers without alienating them as well, because they have no clue what the issues are. Giving users a reasonable time to upgrade to the latest-- and hopefully best-- version of the browser of their choice, and then simply forgetting to code for the older versions, is one way we can push (a little) where it matters. Once you know a site works well in the latest versions of Opera, Safari, Gecko and so on-- and IE6-- and no one is shut out, then it is just a question of going back and see if there's a version of any of these that is less than a few months (or a reasonable timespan) older than the one you have coded for. Maybe a small workaround is needed for one of those 'older' versions, but most likely not. None of the older blue 'e' are within such a time frame, so their users need a little hint that their more than 2 year old blue 'e' is in need of an upgrade. If that happens to be a new blue 'e', so be it. No one is suggesting you should forget IE6 (although we wouldn't mind if we all could do just that ;-) ). IE6 is the latest for those who wants to 'download the internet', so it's about time they 'downloaded it'. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Possibly so, but is an architect being given the short straw by being required to include ramps and elevators in the design of a building? It has to be done because of the 'shortcomings of my assistive technology, my wheelchair, that cannot climb stairs or levitate. I agree that better browser features, CSS support, etc. should be demanded. We do that by using better browsers ourselves and telling friends, relatives, etc. to do the same. Enough people switch to Firefox, Opera, or whatever, and Mr. Softy will eventually make improvements in IE. Of course, I'll have my levitating wheelchair before that happens... Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:52 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility Hi all, I'm coming to this very much as a newbie, so be gentle with your response: I feel that, in many ways, we as web designers are getting the short straw by being asked to counteract the shortcomings of the browser/PC people, rather than the other way around. For example, Opera has a really great zoom feature (as we know) and I can't help feeling that there should be a push to 'demand' this of all browsers. It even works with Flash of course . .. . I haven't heard anything about work going on from this aspect of things (maybe I just don't know about it) but feel that if there isn't such work in progress there should be! What exactly is the position? I hope this isn't OT - I considered not because accessibility is a part of standards. Thanks for your thoughts, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
At 10:37 AM -0600 2/10/05, Christopher M Kelly wrote: Possibly so, but is an architect being given the short straw by being required to include ramps and elevators in the design of a building? The issue is to force companies to make software/hardware better. Something that is physically possible. Your analogy is having architects wanting disabled people to become non-disabled so he/she doesn't have to put in ramps and elevators. Something that is not possible, unfortunately, and not at all the same thing. To have Moz and M$ be part of the W3C, and then turn out browsers (in the past, anyway) that ignore, mess up or reinterpret the standards they help create seems foolish at best. Should we, as part of our jobs, hack and work around these problems for the users, yes. Should it forever be our jobs, no. New versions of browsers should follow/comply with the standards. Period. My 2¢ have now been contributed. Carry on... -- - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
With respect Christopher, I think you're missing the point. To take your analogy further, it seems to me that making web designers emsolelyem responsible for dealing with accessibility is like telling architects they're off the hook with regard to ramps etc, and getting the decorators to carry the disabled into the buildings. . . Until the ramps are built, we decorators do carry folk in and out, but the ultimate responsibility is with the architects, not us. And that often doesn't seem to be the case. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk Original Message - From: Christopher M Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:37 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] accessibility and responsibility Possibly so, but is an architect being given the short straw by being required to include ramps and elevators in the design of a building? It has to be done because of the 'shortcomings of my assistive technology, my wheelchair, that cannot climb stairs or levitate. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
designer wrote: What exactly is the position? Opera's zoom-feature is nice - and useful, but comes more as an addition provided in that browser. IE6 can also zoom pages, but not that user-friendly. We may want browsers to have useful features like this, but that's not what we want first and most (I hope). All the real shortcomings are more important to push for improvements on. Like: 'standard code should work predictable in all browsers'. That's what standard [W3C] tools should give us across browser-land, instead of us having to counteract browser-weaknesses and bugs, and hack our way through a maze of non-standard behavior. http://browsehappy.com/, and similar initiatives, is one way we can push (a little) in the right direction. Some accessibility-features are our responsibility as web designers. We also have to follow standard(s). But when we do, then it should at least *work* across browser-land. Of course: I tell everyone that Opera has the greatest features. But I can't rely on that everyone else agrees with me, so I may have to add 'something' for those who choose Firefox too. :-) It's OK, as long as I don't have to /hack/ it in. Giving users a reasonable time to upgrade to the latest-- and hopefully best-- version of the browser of their choice, and then simply forgetting to code for the older versions, is one way we can push (a little) where it matters. Regrettably, that's not what we usually do, so I guess we've asked for status quo and slow progress, by debugging browsers at our end. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Giving users a reasonable time to upgrade to the latest-- and hopefully best-- version of the browser of their choice, and then simply forgetting to code for the older versions, is one way we can push (a little) where it matters. Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! -- - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Hi all, Jumping in on all these architectural analogies... nobody seems to have made this point: ultimately EVERYONE has some level of responsibility, since everyone is and will remain involed. Let's continue the analogy, for a new building: 1) The government sets out physical access requirements for buildings in broad terms (there are also other bodies which produce building standards but we'll keep this simple). Web equivalent is the W3C. Their responsibility is to get the standards right and communicate them in such a manner that people know what to do. They also need to keep things in the realm of possibility - W3C has a checkpoint to ensure that a proposed standard is actually possible, governments do not specify that venues provide levitating wheelchairs. 2) The architects (and possibly structural engineers) have to interpret the standards and apply them correctly in the design for the building. They will have to find the balance between the goals of the building and the many standards the building will have to meet. They also have to make sure the building won't fall down ;) The architect will probably also have to wrangle the interior decorators to ensure their wonderful additions don't contravene critical requirements. The web equivalent is the web developer, who has to sit between the client, the W3C, the graphic designer and the application developers/programmers. Some people might call this the Web Producer, but most of us don't get the lofty title nor the lofty pay ;) 3) Then the builders/tradespeople come into the picture. They are responsible for the actual physical creation of the building according to the plan. If they don't follow the plan they have failed in their own responsibility (ignoring the legal horrors of real-world architecture). Web equivalent is the web/application developer(s) who actually put the whole thing together. 4) The government inspects and enforces the standards. This area is starting to take shape for the web, with test cases appearing in various countries. It is a very weak area, though. 5) Then the public comes into the building. They will be arriving in wheelchairs which don't levitate, shoes with no grip, they might be drunk, who knows. Nobody who built the place can make them all wear decent shoes (so they don't slip on the stairs) nor can they make everyone's wheelchair levitate. Ultimately people should be allowed to choose whatever shoes they wear. But, they also have to accept falling down if they turn up drunk wearing shoes with no grip. The shoe/wheelchair manufacturers might be grossly negligent but they'll get away with it. Just like browser manufacturers get away with failure to comply with standards. No matter how well any one group/individual conforms to the overall goals; they will always have a responsibility since their part of the process must still be done well. Even if wheelchairs do start levitating, buildings will have to be designed and built with enough space allowed for them to fly around. Nobody will ever become free of responsibility. So 1) The W3C will always have to make good standards and update them. 2) Clients will always have to resource projects well enough to facilitate compliance. 3) Web developers will always have to apply standards properly. 4) User Agent manufacturers will always have to conform to standards. 5) Users will always have to maintain a reasonable level of technology to make use of the standards. The problem right now? Only (1) and (3) are currently happening with any level of success; with (3) carrying the hardest tasks. It's unfair but life is not fair. That's why web developers and architects like to go to the pub ;) h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
