[WSG] Google Image changes: inaccesssibility for all
Hi, As Barney Carroll mentioned in a post to the group earlier today, Google Images has changed so that information such as image dimensions and domain is only displayed when mousing over an image. My tests in Firefox show that using the tab key to give focus to an image doesn't reveal the hidden information, making that information inaccessible to users who don't use a mouse or similar pointing device. Matt Cutts of Google has blogged about it [1], and the comments so far are universally opposed to the change. I'm NOT suggesting that we start a flame war on his blog (he's not responsible for the change, merely pointing it out), but if anybody else feels strongly about this retrograde step they may wish to leave a useful comment there, as he has usually been willing to pass concerns like this along to the right people within Google. If you do comment there, note that he moderates all first-time commenters. So only put him to the trouble if you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, and don't keep re-posting the same comment wondering why it hasn't shown up yet. [1] http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/refresh-of-images-and-groups/ 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] Google Image changes: inaccesssibility for all
Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Hi, As Barney Carroll mentioned in a post to the group earlier today, Google Images has changed so that information such as image dimensions and domain is only displayed when mousing over an image. My tests in Firefox show that using the tab key to give focus to an image doesn't reveal the hidden information, making that information inaccessible to users who don't use a mouse or similar pointing device. The majority of Google is inaccessible in some shape or form. What's one more piece going to do? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Google Image changes: inaccesssibility for all
Brian Cummiskey wrote: The majority of Google is inaccessible in some shape or form. What's one more piece going to do? I hate to sound like a fascist, but in terms of usability for sighted users with compliant browsers (I know, why would we even care?), this is the first time Google's eccentric attitude to standards has actually impeded my use of any of their services. The notion merits consideration: These incredibly 'inaccessible' services are some of the most incredibly accessed on the web. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Google Image changes: inaccesssibility for all
Barney Carroll wrote: I hate to sound like a fascist, but in terms of usability for sighted users with compliant browsers (I know, why would we even care?), this is the first time Google's eccentric attitude to standards has actually impeded my use of any of their services. The notion merits consideration: These incredibly 'inaccessible' services are some of the most incredibly accessed on the web. Sorry, I'm turning into a demagogue. Of course I still believe it would be great if I could get less than 2000 validation warnings per page, and perhaps less than 10 sub-nested tables in my Gmail app. Of course Google could be better - but still, I /do/ care now that one of their products has become practically less usable from a user perspective, as opposed to just abominable by theory. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
