Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
on 03/11/2006 00:59 Matthew Hodgson said the following: snip In the end, we learned the following lessons about vision impaired users and screen readers: a) Only a completely blind person used the screen reader. snip Although you were talking about visually-impaired users and screen readers, I just thought it was worth pointing out that those suffering from severe dyslexia often use screen readers for support. So it maybe unwise to assume that a screen reader user can't see. Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
on 03/11/2006 07:50 kate said the following: What about users with cognitive disibilities? Its a very wide catagorie which includes, simple dyslexia to extreme mental retardation. Apparently these people regularly use the web as a primary imformation source so must be considered. Would they understand the wording 'Go to Menu' etc? Never having the need to use a screen reader its a question I wanted to ask. A dyslexic using a sreenreader for support almost certainly won't have a problem with the wording once they hear it. At the more extreme end of the cognitive issues group, it's highly likely that very basic concepts such as using links will escape them and they may have difficulty with all but the simplest of language. In these situations, users often need 'hand over hand' support (ie someone sitting with them - explaining and guiding them). Using conceptual icons can help both groups to some extent but there does come a a point when there is very little a designer can do to alleviate the problems and it's really down to training, support and experience at the user's end. Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Bruce wrote: I have been following this with great interest. What I have been considering (I know its been covered before) is putting a link at the top of the page, go to text version Go to menu I would think that screen reader users would find that a good addition to be able to read an article in text only, and a shortcut to scan articles which also have brief title tags in addition to descriptive titles. In my design content comes first already... Hi Bruce, et al. This is a study, albeit with a small sample size, done on source order and accessibility. I think it was done by the list owner (Russ/Maxdesign) so perhaps he could chip in if there's been any updates to it since I've seen it. http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/ I wonder whether any of the conclusions that were drawn in the study, are still valid, or whether there has been further research to either supplement or contradict it? Specifically, one observation, The majority of screen reader users EXPECT navigation to be presented before the content. [1], and the subsequent statement Our research showed no clear overall PREFERENCE of source order [2], seem to lead me to believe that there is no real reason to attempt to have layouts with the source order first. Rather than attempting to put content first (which seems to confuse inexperienced screen reader users [3]), I would be attempting to put structural labels, as suggested in [4]. I'd be interested to hearing from people with actual experience, and or research, since all my conclusions are arrived at second-hand. Regards, - Rahul. [1] http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section36 [2] http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section37 [3] http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section38 [4] http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section41 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
@Matthew Hodgson: That's brilliantly useful information, Matthew. It is interesting you mention screen magnifying, because it is my company's policy to use ems as measurements as far as possible, based on the conjecture that partially-sighted people would probably want to increase their default font-size, and having the whole site (within reason) scale with that would make the whole design far more continuous. I recently discovered my Mac's zoom function (I'm forever startled by serendipity while slipping on F keys) which was nice. On a related note, I was horrified to see the effects of what I thought was IE7's text-size scrolling (Ctrl + mouse wheel up/down) - IE is still really bad at re-sizing images (FF is beautiful) and using this function, rather than simply zoom in on the rendered image, it attempts to re-render the whole thing based on botched calculations and creates some hideous results. This function, however, is not text-size scrolling (as it is with every other browser). IE7 still retains the 5 size scrolling but this is accessible only through the menu. I think this change is rather bad because we all expect those two actions to produce the same process, and also it's just not very good and creates a horrible experience for anyone who'd wish to use it. Is default text size adjustment as common as I'd presumed in the partially-sighted community, or is it for the majority, as you suggest, magnification that is used instead? @Steve Green: Steve, what you're doing is exactly what I wanted to hear! Sadly as much as I approve and would want to take part, I can't justify this time off work - my boss has no problem with sending me to design conferences up and down the country, but as far as building on accessibility, company policy is just to accept general standards. As long as you can stamp the site with 'valid code', 'works without script', and 'no tables'... There's no commercial incentive to put any serious work or insight into accessibility (at least as far as our practice dictates). @Frances: The schism between web designers and developers is a terrible thing wherever it appears... And you're right - only pointed work on the part of designers to understand developers and influence them is going to heal the rifts. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Bruce wrote: I would think that screen reader users would find that a good addition to be able to read an article in text only, and a shortcut to scan articles which also have brief title tags in addition to descriptive titles. In my design content comes first already... Not really at Bruce anymore.. This article seems to be good food for thought (and it references the earlier study that I did ;-) ). http://www.alistapart.com/articles/workingwithothers Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: This article seems to be good food for thought (and it references the earlier study that I did ;-) ). http://www.alistapart.com/articles/workingwithothers It was after reading this that I found the guts to question Talibani standards tyrants. It's an absolutely fantastic article that everyone should read - some of the best web philosophy that's ever been on ALA. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
on 03/11/2006 10:50 Rahul Gonsalves said the following: snip http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/ I wonder whether any of the conclusions that were drawn in the study, are still valid, or whether there has been further research to either supplement or contradict it? Specifically, one observation, The majority of screen reader users EXPECT navigation to be presented before the content. [1], and the subsequent statement Our research showed no clear overall PREFERENCE of source order [2], seem to lead me to believe that there is no real reason to attempt to have layouts with the source order first. snip I'd be interested to hearing from people with actual experience, and or research, since all my conclusions are arrived at second-hand. I also did a very small study on page order with some experienced pan-disability users/testers from the Shaw Trust (www..shaw-trust.org.uk) about a year ago. The feedback that I received confirmed the findings above. Users expected site navigation to be presented before content. Overall, the testers felt that placing content before navigation didn't offer any real benefits - especially as it was contrary to their expectations and previous experience. So it would seem that, once a 'trend' is well established, going against it (even for the best of reasons) can create its own issues. Users, generally, don't like being suprised or being made to think as they try to move around a site or page. In a separate, earlier, piece of research, I came across screen reader users who preferred to access content before navigation and achieved this by simply jumping to the bottom of the page and working upwards as standard. So it would seem that screen reader users are perfectly capable of developing their own individual strategies to maximise the chances of page content being rendered in the order that they prefer. But, again, this kind of strategy is based upon the expectation that content will be placed after navigation. If you design contrary to that expectation, the end result may be disorientations and/or frustration for this sub-group. In the past 12 months, I've not come across any newer studies that would suggest anything has changed. Hope that helps. Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
on 03/11/2006 11:18 Barney Carroll said the following: snip By the way, could anyone elaborate on what tab-indexing is? And how does the Alt+# system work? These seem to be crucial elements of screen reader browsing but I have a very limited grasp of their convention and application. Tabindexing allow a designer to specify the order in which links or controls receive focus on a page when using the TAB key to move around. Elements on a page that do not have an associated tabindex will have a 'natural' ordering (ie follwong the order they appear in the markup). If you mix the two, the elements with a specified tabindex will come first followed by unindexed elements. Speaking as an intermittent keyboard navigator/VR user, I consider tabindexing to be the spawn of satan - especially when it runs contrary to the 'natural' or expected tab order on a page. For example, if I land on a page which renders some content containing a few links followed by a form, I expect to be able to tab to the links first followed by the forum controls. One common use of tabindexing that I come across in this situation gives preference to the form controls and leaves the links unindexed. So, when I hit the TAB key expecting to jump to the first link, I actually end up on the form and often have to tab through the whole thing to get back to the links which, visually, are actually higher up the page. The end result (especially if there is a lack of visual highlighting on focus) is often complete disorientations and exasperation. On really bad pages, I sometimes have to rely on reading the browser status bar just to try and figure out where I'm tabbing to! If I had one thing (OK- one thing amongst many) to ask of other designers it would be Please don't create tab orders that are unintuitive!. Users (in the West, anyway) expect tab ordering to follow a left-to-right top-to-bottom rule and, as soon as you mess with that, you create confusion. By the 'Alt+# system', I assume you mean accesskeys. It's a way of defining keyboard shortcuts which, in theory, allow users to jump to, for example, the Search item on the menu by selecting ALT+s. Depending on the browser being used, the user may then have to press ENTER to activate the link. The designer can define which keys, in conjunction with ALT (or CTRL on a Mac) relate to which links by means of the accesskey attribute. However, there are problems associated with defining accesskeys on a site as they can over-ride pre-existing keyboard shortcuts in the user's software. http://www.wats.ca/show.php?contentid=43 has a fairly comprehensive list whilst http://www.wats.ca/show.php?contentid=32 also has makes some interesting points. Since the release of Firefox 2.0, there are also problems with using numeric accesskeys on sites. http://juicystudio.com/article/firefox2-accesskeys.php My own experience and research suggests that most of the users that designers *assume* will want to use accesskeys don't bother with them. They vary too much from site to site to be really useful. Providing the tab order is intuitive, users prefer to simply tab around pages or use options within their own software (which they know far better than a random site) to jump to specific points on a page or site rather than research a whole list of new keyboard shortcuts on every site they visit. Gez Lemon and Rich Pedley developed a php AccessKeys class that allows users to define their own access keys . In theory, users could define the same subset of keys on every site that uses this approach: http://juicystudio.com/article/user-defined-accesskeys.php Gez has also since developed an .ASP version: http://juicystudio.com/article/user-defined-access-keys-aspversion.php However, I don't think either version has been around long enough, or is implemented widely enough, to indicate how many keyboard navigators actually use make use of the facility when it's offered. I know I've never bothered. :-) Mel *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/ I wonder whether any of the conclusions that were drawn in the study, are still valid, or whether there has been further research to either supplement or contradict it? Specifically, one observation, The majority of screen reader users EXPECT navigation to be presented before the content. [1], and the subsequent statement Our research showed no clear overall PREFERENCE of source order [2], seem to lead me to believe that there is no real reason to attempt to have layouts with the source order first. Rather than attempting to put content first (which seems to confuse inexperienced screen reader users [3]), I would be attempting to put structural labels, as suggested in [4]. I'd be interested to hearing from people with actual experience, and or research, since all my conclusions are arrived at second-hand. Hi Rahul, The full article to support the presentation you have linked to is here: http://www.usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm While no further research has been undertaken by Roger, Lisa or I in this specific area, we are still working with blind users regularly. In fact, I have been sitting watching blind users today. What struck us during testing last year, and has been confirmed on many occasions since, is that: 1. Source order is often irrelevant as most screen reader users and refreshable Braille device users [1] have a variety of ways that they can move around pages quickly (skipping to heading levels, links, forms, form elements, as well as tabbing quickly through content and doing direct searches for content on the page). The concept of top and bottom of pages often becomes irrelevant. 2. Well structured content is a VERY important aid for blind users as it allows them to use their preferred method of moving around the page. Poorly structured pages often do not allow this to occur. 3. Assistive markup in forms and tables is also vital. The testing carried out today confirmed this with blind users having a great deal of trouble filling in forms due to poorly labelled input elements (or in some cases no labelling at all). 4. Structural labels are not critical but are quite helpful as they flag sections of the page. They act almost like street signs, allowing people to know where they are within the pages content. One quick test for all of this is simply to turn off all styles and read the content of your (unstyled) page. Does it make sense to you? Is the content running together? Are headings helping to break the content into meaningful chunks? The second quick test is to then tab around the page with the keyboard only and see how hard it all is to use. :) HTH Russ [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/russweakley/58957885/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 02:36:22PM +, Barney Carroll wrote: w3c's accessibility guidelines are highly revered, and for the most part there is good cause for this - and as I've said I am a supporter of the notion of standardisation - but when talking about the precepts of design for the blind, I become very cynical because this stuff is pure idle theory from sighted people. What makes you think that WCAG is pure idle theory from sighted people? There are blind users on the WAI mailing list (who have contributed to the spec), and (IIRC) rather a lot of overlap between WCAG 1.0 and the RNIB's[1] See It Right campaign. Oh, and accessibility is about Access for all not Blind people. [1] http://www.rnib.org.uk/ -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Barney Carroll wrote: Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point known problems. Dear Barney, For Firefox, this seems like an interesting utility. I haven't used it yet, but I think you might find it useful. https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/402/ Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
BarneyFirst port of call is try using a screen reader yourself. Although expensive to purchase, a free 30 day evaluation of IBM HPR can be obtained. The experience is different with each type of screen reader due to their quitet propriety ways of operating. Although you can never simulate being blind, running a screen reader with your screen switched off can be an interesting experience. It will make you think a lot more about usability, not only accessibility standards. On 02/11/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear list,Not sure if this is exactly the place to ask, but I am very eager to getany authoritative (and by now, 'authoritative' can be qualified byanybody who's so much as seen one) information on screen readers. I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards asa concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more andmore I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemncertain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility.While there is always common sense to fall back on, and we are lucky enough to live in a world with such a thing as the w3c, there are timeswhen I become suspicious of accessibility precepts. You can't do thisbecause screen readers will mess it up is incredibly common for inexperienced, adventurous web designers, before their imagination andcreative approach to code is finally conditioned out of them withouttheir ever being too sure why.Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, I (have no choice but to) respect the notion that websites should allow them a seamless, fulfilling, experience. I amobviously not doing this for any practical reward - as I've mentioned Ihave never had any contact with a screen reader user - for all I care they could not actually exist; but as a challenge to a very pure stateof markup, the grail of smooth screen-reader navigation is worth achieving.Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point knownproblems.I think the myth surrounding screen readers is an incredibly bad thingbecause it fills the community with superstition. A great many otherwise intelligent, adventurous and imaginative potential innovators in theworld of web design are completely crippled by this thing that they haveno experience of whatsoever - it may as well be imaginary.w3c's accessibility guidelines are highly revered, and for the most part there is good cause for this - and as I've said I am a supporter of thenotion of standardisation - but when talking about the precepts ofdesign for the blind, I become very cynical because this stuff is pure idle theory from sighted people.I would love any links to articles/archived polemic/research studies/theappropriate list... If anybody here has actual experience of a screenreader, I would be overjoyed to hear from them. Likewise, if this is wholly irrelevant to this list then please tell me. :)Regards,Barney***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]*** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear list, Not sure if this is exactly the place to ask, but I am very eager to get any authoritative (and by now, 'authoritative' can be qualified by anybody who's so much as seen one) information on screen readers. I suspect some of this conversation might be a tiny bit out of scope for hte WSG list, but hey... I don't mind. If you want more specialised discussion, then WAI have an interest group mailing list that you an use [1] and you can get some direct answers and thoughts from those working within the W3C. I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards as a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more and more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemn certain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility. I'm pretty curious to know which standardistas you're talking to then - most I know are into the standards area because they do care about accessibility and good sites for all. While there is always common sense to fall back on, and we are lucky enough to live in a world with such a thing as the w3c, there are times when I become suspicious of accessibility precepts. You can't do this because screen readers will mess it up is incredibly common for inexperienced, adventurous web designers, before their imagination and creative approach to code is finally conditioned out of them without their ever being too sure why. Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, I (have no choice but to) respect the notion that web sites should allow them a seamless, fulfilling, experience. I am obviously not doing this for any practical reward - as I've mentioned I have never had any contact with a screen reader user - for all I care they could not actually exist; but as a challenge to a very pure state of markup, the grail of smooth screen-reader navigation is worth achieving. Recently I wrote a blog post about screen readers, and was invited to attend some real live screen reader demos with blind users. You might find these useful if you do want to get some experience. [2] If you do a quick google, there's a few organisations in the UK that do accessbility testing for you, with users who have accessibility special needs (for want of a better term). [1]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/ [2]http://www.fberriman.com/?p=105#comment-3592 -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, Hi Barney, JAWS used to have a free downloadable demo that would give you a taste of what it is like to use it. I used the full version on my last job. It was my first experience with a screen reader and it made me, er, see things differently. A very interesting experience. -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 2 Nov 2006, at 14:36:22, Barney Carroll wrote: Not sure if this is exactly the place to ask, but I am very eager to get any authoritative (and by now, 'authoritative' can be qualified by anybody who's so much as seen one) information on screen readers. Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, Have you asked any blind people? There's probably some charitable organisation local to you that would be able to put you in touch with people with various degrees of visual impairment, using assorted assistive technologies to various levels of competence, who would be willing to participate in a properly-constructed program of user testing. Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point known problems. You can download trial versions of all the major screen-reading applications. (Learning to use them in the same way as a visually impaired user is a different challenge, hence the importance of user testing.) I think the myth surrounding screen readers is an incredibly bad thing because it fills the community with superstition. A great many otherwise intelligent, adventurous and imaginative potential innovators in the world of web design are completely crippled by this thing that they have no experience of whatsoever - it may as well be imaginary. My blind friend Andy would kick you in the balls for describing an awareness of the difficulties he faces as superstition or imaginary. He wears heavy boots, too. w3c's accessibility guidelines are highly revered, and for the most part there is good cause for this - and as I've said I am a supporter of the notion of standardisation - but when talking about the precepts of design for the blind, I become very cynical because this stuff is pure idle theory from sighted people. Not so. There is plenty of good information out there based on the actual experiences of blind and partially sighted people. Also note that the W3C's accessibility guidelines are not exclusively concerned with visual impairment. I would love any links to articles/archived polemic/research studies/the appropriate list... If anybody here has actual experience of a screen reader, I would be overjoyed to hear from them. Download and use one (or preferably several). And read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the book Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance (Thatcher et al., pub. Friends of Ed 2006). Likewise, if this is wholly irrelevant to this list then please tell me. :) I think any discussion of accessibility is valuable when intended to improve awareness of the issues involved :-) Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Hi Barney, We have a great deal of experience of user testing with screen readers and magnifiers, and provide testing and training services. I hope this is considered to be on-topic because web standards and semantic markup are very important for screen reader users. In fact they probably benefit more than most other users. You are only 25 miles from us (we're at Staines, by Heathrow) so you (and anyone else who is interested) are welcome to attend our free demonstration of the JAWS screen reader on Monday 27 November. It starts at 1:30pm and lasts about 3 hours. In conjunction with one of our blind testers I will be demonstrating how screen readers are used, the issues facing their users and some things that can be done to make websites easier to use. There are more details and a booking form at www.accessibility.co.uk/free_jaws_demo.htm but you will need to be quick because there are only 4 or 5 places left. If anyone would like to attend but cannot make it that day we will be running more demos next year (this is the fifth and last this year). Also anyone is welcome to drop in for a chat and a brief demo any time. Steve Green Director Test Partners Ltd / First Accessibility www.testpartners.co.uk www.accessibility.co.uk Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear list, Not sure if this is exactly the place to ask, but I am very eager to get any authoritative (and by now, 'authoritative' can be qualified by anybody who's so much as seen one) information on screen readers. I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards as a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more and more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemn certain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility. While there is always common sense to fall back on, and we are lucky enough to live in a world with such a thing as the w3c, there are times when I become suspicious of accessibility precepts. You can't do this because screen readers will mess it up is incredibly common for inexperienced, adventurous web designers, before their imagination and creative approach to code is finally conditioned out of them without their ever being too sure why. Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader, I (have no choice but to) respect the notion that web sites should allow them a seamless, fulfilling, experience. I am obviously not doing this for any practical reward - as I've mentioned I have never had any contact with a screen reader user - for all I care they could not actually exist; but as a challenge to a very pure state of markup, the grail of smooth screen-reader navigation is worth achieving. Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point known problems. I think the myth surrounding screen readers is an incredibly bad thing because it fills the community with superstition. A great many otherwise intelligent, adventurous and imaginative potential innovators in the world of web design are completely crippled by this thing that they have no experience of whatsoever - it may as well be imaginary. w3c's accessibility guidelines are highly revered, and for the most part there is good cause for this - and as I've said I am a supporter of the notion of standardisation - but when talking about the precepts of design for the blind, I become very cynical because this stuff is pure idle theory from sighted people. I would love any links to articles/archived polemic/research studies/the appropriate list... If anybody here has actual experience of a screen reader, I would be overjoyed to hear from them. Likewise, if this is wholly irrelevant to this list then please tell me. :) Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
I've just carried out a research project (http://www.roboneill.co.uk/research.htm) in which I observed blind web users in action. You just don't realise the obstacles they face until you see it for yourself. Look in your yellow pages for a local self help group, I'm sure they would be happy to let you observe them and their access technologies in action. Rob. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/11/2006 15:12:25 On 2 Nov 2006, at 14:36:22, Barney Carroll wrote: Not sure if this is exactly the place to ask, but I am very eager to get any authoritative (and by now, 'authoritative' can be qualified by anybody who's so much as seen one) information on screen readers. Despite the fact I haven't been able to find anyone who has ever used a screen reader,Have you asked any blind people? There's probably some charitable organisation local to you that would be able to put you in touch with people with various degrees of visual impairment, using assorted assistive technologies to various levels of competence, who would be willing to participate in a properly-constructed program of user testing. Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point known problems.You can download trial versions of all the major screen-reading applications. (Learning to use them in the same way as a visually impaired user is a different challenge, hence the importance of user testing.) I think the myth surrounding screen readers is an incredibly bad thing because it fills the community with superstition. A great many otherwise intelligent, adventurous and imaginative potential innovators in the world of web design are completely crippled by this thing that they have no experience of whatsoever - it may as well be imaginary.My blind friend Andy would kick you in the balls for describing an awareness of the difficulties he faces as "superstition" or "imaginary". He wears heavy boots, too. w3c's accessibility guidelines are highly revered, and for the most part there is go! od cause for this - and as I've said I am a supporter of the notion of standardisation - but when talking about the precepts of design for the blind, I become very cynical because this stuff is pure idle theory from sighted people.Not so. There is plenty of good information out there based on the actual experiences of blind and partially sighted people. Also note that the W3C's accessibility guidelines are not exclusively concerned with visual impairment. I would love any links to articles/archived polemic/research studies/the appropriate list... If anybody here has actual experience of a screen reader, I would be overjoyed to hear from them.Download and use one (or preferably several). And read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the book "Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance" (Thatcher et al., pub. Friends of Ed 2006). Likewise, if this is wholly irrelevant to this list then please tell me. :)I think any discussion of accessibility is valuable when intended to improve awareness of the issues involved :-)Regards,Nick.-- Nick Fitzsimonshttp://www.nickfitz.co.uk/***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]*** *** IMPORTANT NOTICE *** *** NHSBSA DISCLAIMER *** This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it, including replies and forwarded copies subsequently transmitted (which may contain alterations), contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. The content of this e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the person authorised as responsible for delivery to the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this e-mail or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Help Desk at the NHS Business Services Authority, Prescription Pricing Division via e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] including a copy of this message. Please then delete this e-mail and destroy any copies of it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to validate this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses, as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus that might be transferred by way of this e-mail. This e-mail is from the NHS Business Services Authority whose principal office is at Bridge House, 152 Pilgrim Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 6SN. Switchboard Telephone Number :- +44 (0)191 232 5371 ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe:
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Whether you use Fangs or a real screen reader it is difficult for a developer or tester to know if a website is really accessible unless they have an understanding of how screen reader users visualise a website and interact with it. There is a huge difference between being able to hear the content and being able to understand it. Whilst it is possible to make some generalities (as we do in our demonstrations) every user testing project reveals difficulties we would not have forseen. It is far too big a topic to discuss at length here, but problems include having too much content on a page, use of visual metaphors, and the meaning of the content being conveyed by the spatial relationship between two or more pieces of content. In each case all the content can be heard but it may not be understood. Complex tables and nested lists may be unintelligible despite being marked up perfectly in terms of semantics and standards compliance. And dynamic content (e.g. DHTML and AJAX) is a world of pain. Steve Green Director Test Partners Ltd / First Accessibility www.testpartners.co.uk www.accessibility.co.uk Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: Only I can never know if I have achieved it, because I can't test it; nor can I find anybody else to test for me, or even pin-point known problems. Dear Barney, For Firefox, this seems like an interesting utility. I haven't used it yet, but I think you might find it useful. https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/402/ Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Michael Yeaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yet again...on the topic of screen readers, nobody has once mentioned the possibility that perhaps we as web developers a pretty darn good job, and that maybe it is the screen reader manufacturers that need the 'kick in the balls'why, I'm not sure - but it seems to be a trend. I mentioned this in the blog post I wrote to that I linked to. I think that poor screen reader software is a very *big* issue that is generally overlooked since we do not use them. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
That's because very few actually do a pretty darn good job. Most don't give screen reader users a moment's thought, and it is fortunate that they coincidentally benefit from some things that good designers do such as semantic markup and standards-compliant coding. Furthermore, I don't think that many designers understand how to design websites that are screen reader friendly even if they wanted to. How many designers have ever worked with a screen reader user and learned what the real issues are? Screen reader software could certainly be improved but most of the problems users face are not due to technical limitations. The problems mostly relate to understanding a linearised version of multi-dimensional content that lacks the visual styling and spatial relationships that make browsing easy for sighted users. Steve Green Director Test Partners Ltd / First Accessibility www.testpartners.co.uk www.accessibility.co.uk Michael Yeaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yet again...on the topic of screen readers, nobody has once mentioned the possibility that perhaps we as web developers a pretty darn good job, and that maybe it is the screen reader manufacturers that need the 'kick in the balls'why, I'm not sure - but it seems to be a trend. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Hi all, Michael - I'm not exactly sure which message in particular you are replying to, but I have a few comments on this statement you made: On 11/2/06, Michael Yeaney wrote: And yet again...on the topic of screen readers, nobody has once mentioned the possibility that perhaps we as web developers a pretty darn good job, and that maybe it is the screen reader manufacturers that need the 'kick in the balls' Perhaps we are doing a pretty darn good job. Sadly though, we are not in the majority. And therein lies the difficulty. When we talk about we doing a pretty darn good job, we're talking about - what - maybe 5% of web professionals worldwide? More, less? I'm not sure but we're not in the majority as far as I can tell. Further - you have written about screen reader manufacturers. What, exactly are the issues that you feel you need to kick them in the balls about? Frances - you said: I think that poor screen reader software is a very *big* issue that is generally overlooked since we do not use them. If we're going to do anything, then we'd better be able to say somethign more substantial that poor screen reader software - we need to be able to back it up. (That sounded like I was singling you out, Frances - but far from it... You just happened to comment) This is one thing we're attempting to address with the Assistive Technology Initiative of the Web Standards Project's Accessibility Task Force [1]. Through this initiative we are talking with screen reader manufacturers and other Assistive Technology vendors. They are engaging with us to work together. (Note that we're working with any vendors that want - for profit, open source, whatever) (For those of you that don't know, I'm a WaSP member and Lead of the WaSP Accessibility Task Force) So if I may make a few suggestions: 1. Let us not kick anyone in the balls. We're part of the same team here. Lets keep this constructive. Michael - what exactly is it about screen readers that is bugging you? Frances - what is it about them that is poor? Anyone else? 2. Are there issues that you want to have us address in our discussions with them? Or are there things you want clarified? 3. Take these items and email them to me for now - I'm going to figure out some other mechanism (perhaps on the WaSP site) to collect these ideas and feedback from you and we'll pull them all together. For now - email to me is fine (he says with much trepidation!) Cheers, Derek. [1] http://webstandards.org/action/atf/open-invitation-to-assistive- technology-vendors/ -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +1 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 03/11/06, Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So if I may make a few suggestions:Nicely said. Way to cut through the crap! ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
1. Let us not kick anyone in the balls. ... Agreed...especially with heavy boots..LoL..onward: What frustrates me most about screen reader software for the web is the fact that the only way for them to get information from a document is to flatten and remove ~2/3's (CSS and script) of the factors that (possibly) are contributing to the presentation as a whole (be it audio/visual/etc.) After working with desktop software for a while before moving to the web, I can tell you that there really aren't any layout considerations done on behalf of the software to help accessibility clients (such as screen readers). Why??? Two reasons: 1) The isn't any other way to develop the software for the desktop (you can't change the layout, there are no style sheets to remove, etc.) 2) From a 'semantic structure' point of view (if there is such a thing for desktop software), these type s of applications are a mess - windows nested within windows ad nauseum (OS windows mind you). 3) The are specific API's designed to help convey information to accessibility clients from the software (Microsoft's Active Accessibility API comes to mind). So, in a nutshell, I guess what I'm miffed about is that world of the web has no matching counterpart, be it in script, tag attributes, or otherwise, to help accessibility clients discover and convey information about a site.. Seems like a very big gap, IMO. Thoughts??? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Michael Yeaney wrote: What frustrates me most about screen reader software for the web is the fact that the only way for them to get information from a document is to flatten and remove ~2/3's (CSS and script) of the factors that (possibly) are contributing to the presentation as a whole (be it audio/visual/etc.) I'd like to respond to this one a little bit later... on to the rest: 1) The isn't any other way to develop the software for the desktop (you can't change the layout, there are no style sheets to remove, etc.) There may not be the ability to change the layout, but there are layout considerations when developing desktop software. If you are building a desktop application and drag and drop form fields (a convenient example, I'll admit) their tab order is in the order in which they were dragged on to the form or stage or whatever-the-thing-is-called-in-your-situation. So, what do we do? We make the layout more linear using the tabIndex property. The linear, logical order is the equivalent to layout - it mimics to a certain extent the logical visual layout that is apparent on through visual grouping, proximity and similarity of style. 2) From a 'semantic structure' point of view (if there is such a thing for desktop software), these type s of applications are a mess - windows nested within windows ad nauseum (OS windows mind you). I'm not following what you mean here (seriously!) - are you saying that semantic structure doesn't exist in desktop applications? I'm not sure how that applies here... Can you clarify? 3) The are specific API's designed to help convey information to accessibility clients from the software (Microsoft's Active Accessibility API comes to mind). Indeed. Windows based screen readers tie directly into the MSA API. VoiceOver on OSX ties in directly to the OSX Accessibility API, and other *nix based screen readers are trying to do the same... So, in a nutshell, I guess what I'm miffed about is that world of the web has no matching counterpart, be it in script, tag attributes, or otherwise, to help accessibility clients discover and convey information about a site.. Seems like a very big gap, IMO. I don't think the gap is as big as you think it might, to be honest. Cheers, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +1 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Let us not kick anyone in the balls. We're part of the same team here. Lets keep this constructive. Michael - what exactly is it about screen readers that is bugging you? Frances - what is it about them that is poor? Anyone else? Hey Derek - yeah.. I just whipped out a quick response on my way out of the office door - I should have thought about it more first. I just meant mostly that the software - in my limited experience personally using it - seems difficult to use. I'm hoping to learn more about how users REALLY use them when I attend Steve's live demo later this month! I certainly didn't intend to come across as harsh to any party in my response, by the way. I'm as keen as anyone to help in some way to improve people's experiences on the web. F -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
On 11/2/06, Frances Berriman wrote: I just meant mostly that the software - in my limited experience personally using it - seems difficult to use. Hi Frances - no worries... Yes, I would expect it to be difficult for you to use. Guess what? (Forgive the generalizations about to be written) It is generally difficult for new screen reader users too. They have motivation on their side, though. They get used to it. Sometimes it is all they know, and that is difficult for us to understand because our perceptions of the web are so very different. I'm not saying that screen readers are perfect, but they are an incredibly enabling technology that has evolved over years to find ways to make sense of crappy web sites (you know, the other 95% of sites that aren't founded on web standards and accessibility) I'm hoping to learn more about how users REALLY use them when I attend Steve's live demo later this month! A perfect plan of attack, IMO. I certainly didn't intend to come across as harsh to any party in my response, by the way. I'm as keen as anyone to help in some way to improve people's experiences on the web. I didn't think you did, but wanted to clarify - if there was something that you thought was poor about them, then I wanted to know so that any issues are brought forward, discussed and potentially resolved or clarified. If you do think of anything, please do let me know... I'm all ears! (and eyes) Cheers, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +1 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Good points...I'll try to clarify: There may not be the ability to change the layout, but there are layout considerations when developing desktop software. If you are building a desktop application and drag and drop form fields (a convenient example, I'll admit) their tab order is in the order in which they were dragged on to the form or stage or whatever-the-thing-is-called-in-your-situation. So, what do we do? We make the layout more linear using the tabIndex property. The linear, logical order is the equivalent to layout - it mimics to a certain extent the logical visual layout that is apparent on through visual grouping, proximity and similarity of style. If tab index was all we were worried about, this discussion would be over. It goes way beyond that. As you indicated, this example was a bit contrived - even in the web, a document stripped of all supporting files still maintains tab index. The same cannot be said for the implied importance a certain color scheme gives to an element. If we could 'notify' the screen readers that some specific DIV was 'important', 'ranked higher' or had 'new content', we have provided a usable substitute to color alone. I'm not following what you mean here (seriously!) - are you saying that semantic structure doesn't exist in desktop applications? I'm not sure how that applies here... Can you clarify? I was attempting to draw the parallel with web documents stripped of all styling methods and desktop apps stripped of layout context (if that were possible). If you have ever used Spy++ (an MS tool designed to show handle references), you would see that even the simplest applications are made up of many, nested objects that don't necessarily contribute to the semantic meaning of the application (and in some cases contradict it). For example, a simple drop down list (like our SELECT tag) has it's own window handle in the OS. Is it a window to the user??? Absolutely not. Is it a window in the context of the application??? No. Does this (on it's own) effectively convey what this control is for?? No. Not very semantic (by definition, anyway). Yet desktop screen readers are fine with this type of hierarchy. So to bring this example to the web (and to use my own contrived example), let's say I have an dv / iframe / object floating (visually) somewhere at the bottom of my web app that is delivering a custom channel of information that's updated every minute or so, and it briefly flashes when it updates. What would be the harm in allowing me to 'register' this tag with the screen reader as the 'Stock Quote Feed' to give it some context And also, when it updates, I want to the let the reader know via a raised event. I think the WHATWG was/is considering something like this, but I'm surprised it has taken this long. I don't think the gap is as big as you think it might, to be honest. Maybe not for web content sites that are document-centric to begin with, but the web application world is not so easy to 'flatten'. But that's a topic for another day HTH, Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
I have been following this with great interest. What I have been considering (I know its been covered before) is putting a link at the top of the page, go to text version Go to menu I would think that screen reader users would find that a good addition to be able to read an article in text only, and a shortcut to scan articles which also have brief title tags in addition to descriptive titles. In my design content comes first already... Bruce Prochnau BKDesign Solutions - Original Message - From: Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers On 11/2/06, Michael Yeaney wrote: What frustrates me most about screen reader software for the web is the fact that the only way for them to get information from a document is to flatten and remove ~2/3's (CSS and script) of the factors that (possibly) are contributing to the presentation as a whole (be it audio/visual/etc.) I'd like to respond to this one a little bit later... on to the rest: 1) The isn't any other way to develop the software for the desktop (you can't change the layout, there are no style sheets to remove, etc.) There may not be the ability to change the layout, but there are layout considerations when developing desktop software. If you are building a desktop application and drag and drop form fields (a convenient example, I'll admit) their tab order is in the order in which they were dragged on to the form or stage or whatever-the-thing-is-called-in-your-situation. So, what do we do? We make the layout more linear using the tabIndex property. The linear, logical order is the equivalent to layout - it mimics to a certain extent the logical visual layout that is apparent on through visual grouping, proximity and similarity of style. 2) From a 'semantic structure' point of view (if there is such a thing for desktop software), these type s of applications are a mess - windows nested within windows ad nauseum (OS windows mind you). I'm not following what you mean here (seriously!) - are you saying that semantic structure doesn't exist in desktop applications? I'm not sure how that applies here... Can you clarify? 3) The are specific API's designed to help convey information to accessibility clients from the software (Microsoft's Active Accessibility API comes to mind). Indeed. Windows based screen readers tie directly into the MSA API. VoiceOver on OSX ties in directly to the OSX Accessibility API, and other *nix based screen readers are trying to do the same... So, in a nutshell, I guess what I'm miffed about is that world of the web has no matching counterpart, be it in script, tag attributes, or otherwise, to help accessibility clients discover and convey information about a site.. Seems like a very big gap, IMO. I don't think the gap is as big as you think it might, to be honest. Cheers, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +1 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
A 'go to text version' link certainly won't hurt, but our experience of user testing is that they are rarely used. In fact we did a test project last week where the site had a text version, an audio version and a built-in magnifier, but only one of the three users (who was a screen reader user) even noticed any of them. However, despite having some difficulties with the site he never tried the text-only version. Maybe this is because in the past text-only versions were maintained (or not) separately and often had outdated or incomplete content. Obviously it is possible to generate both versions from the same content but few sites do this. We also came across a site that had no fewer that six 'skip to' links such as 'skip to main navigation', 'skip to sub navigation', 'skip to main content' etc. The whole thing was so verbose that they really needed a 'skip past all these skip links' link. The point being that screen reader users benefit from pages being as terse as possible (i.e. less to remember), and that sometimes they are hindered by features that have been added to help them. With regard to 'title' attributes, by default these are not read by most screen readers. Some have an option that allows the user to read them but that's little use because the user has no way of knowing if an element has a 'title' attribute except by trial and error, and it's too much hard work to keep checking. My email program mangled my previous emails today, so in case anyone missed it, we're running a free JAWS demo on 27 November. Full details and booking form at www.accessibility.co.uk/free_jaws_demo.htm. Steve Green Director Test Partners Ltd / First Accessibility www.testpartners.co.uk www.accessibility.co.uk -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Sent: 02 November 2006 23:28 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers I have been following this with great interest. What I have been considering (I know its been covered before) is putting a link at the top of the page, go to text version Go to menu I would think that screen reader users would find that a good addition to be able to read an article in text only, and a shortcut to scan articles which also have brief title tags in addition to descriptive titles. In my design content comes first already... Bruce Prochnau BKDesign Solutions *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
When I worked at the National Library we had Vision Australia (used to be the Blind Society) look at the new Libraries Australia website. You can pay for them to go through a site and theyll tell you and show you whether it can be used by visually impaired people. It is a real eye opener to see what they do and how they use a site. In the end, we learned the following lessons about vision impaired users and screen readers: a) Only a completely blind person used the screen reader. Most people with a visual impairment will use a screen magnifier that brings a completely different perspective to things. They only see a small piece of the website at a time. Itd be like looking at a screen only through a magnifying glass. b) Consistency of layout is important. If you have a 3 column layout, use it throughout the site. They will get an expectation of component x to be in the same place for every page. If it is not they will have a hard time trying to find it. c) Keep it standards compliant and make sure the (x)html code validates (if you get this right then its easier to get the accessibility right) d) Make sure that the flow of narrative through the document makes sense if you take the css away. Use headings to differentiate between menus and content e) Make sure that when images are content they are in the document. Otherwise, use css to make them part of the design. f) Adding tab order through your menus is helpful. g) Forms are trickiest. We found it best to make sure that the words came first and then the action. Many people are tempted, for example, to put the checkbox first and then the words next. [ ] Male [ ] Female They wanted to see it this way: Male [ ] Female [ ] This also had more sense for the blind person with the screen reader. It read the text before saying there was a checkbox. Same thing for search. Use the word search, then the text field, then the button. Then there was the things about using labels for forms, table/column headers and captions. All these things make it easier for the screen reader, but not for screen magnifiers. Hope this is of some help M ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
I would love any links to articles/archived polemic/research studies/the appropriate list... If anybody here has actual experience of a screen reader, I would be overjoyed to hear from them. Joe Clark or James Edwards aka Brothercake are practicing screen reader testing with various some-technology-enabled sites to test AT behaviour.[1][2] (Plus there's one more on this from Bruce Lawson.[3]) If you're looking for a dedicated forum, you could try AccessifyForum.com [4] ... BTW I use VoiceOver on MacOS X pretty often. The same goes for inverted color scheme or zoomed screen - my eyes simply hurt after a whole day stuck to a display... The issue I see nowadays is where the assistive technology doesn't quite catch up with the recent best-practice (sorry to lean it all towards JS/DOM...). One thing is having an accessible content, however I really believe the AT should be built in the system in such way that it could really handle all the information a sighted user could get, and process it for the screen reader. Derek, I'm talking about non-linear DOM changes or generally event announcement. I think we quite agreed on that with Tomas Caspers and Brothercake. BTW a half year ago I commented on this topic under Garrett's article[5], and maybe made the same mistake of mentioning turning JS off as Derek did some time ago if I'm not mistaken. [1]http://joeclark.org/access/research/ice/iceweb2006-notes.html [2]http://www.sitepoint.com/print/ajax-screenreaders-work [3]http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2006/ajax-accessibility-and-assistive-technology/ [4]http://www.accessifyforum.com/ [5]http://www.garrettdimon.com/archives/front-end-architecture-ajax-dom-scripting -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers
Hello, putting a link at the top of the page, Bruce, What about users with cognitive disibilities? Its a very wide catagorie which includes, simple dyslexia to extreme mental retardation. Apparently these people regularly use the web as a primary imformation source so must be considered. Would they understand the wording 'Go to Menu' etc? Never having the need to use a screen reader its a question I wanted to ask. Kate *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
