RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I'd be careful of overstating the case like this, as it can undermine the whole argument. The technical term is presbyopia, a physical inability of the lens of the eye to focus properly. Specifically, the lens loses its elasticity and ability to properly focus on near objects. It is a natural course of aging. Onset is often between the ages of 40-50, however, it has been seen at earlier ages. In web terms, one's ability to obtain information from computer monitors (web pages) will decrease as one ages, without correction. The normal method of correction is bifocal lenses, even trifocal lenses in some cases. As pointed out in another email in this thread, taking advantage of a browser's magnifications abilities through accessibility coding techniques is an excellent example to address this. It's rather difficult to overstate the issue when over the course of time, presbyopia is pretty much 100 percent universal within the human population. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw ??where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.? --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
I'll just address one you raised Jens. Google does not currently parse external Javascript files. So unless Fairfax uses simple inline Javascript, and exposes spiderable URLS, that's probably good enough for most of us to use progressive enhancement methodology . Ask Lucas. When he gets back from SG Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
At Yahoo! we build our sites to work without JS and then add progressive enhancement. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we find a much larger number of users without JS. Take a look at this page: http://finance.yahoo.com/news With JS enabled and disabled you'll see all of the customization functionality works. The personalization features were built by Dirk Ginader who also made this presentation on why and how you should build sites for everyone. http://www.slideshare.net/ginader/the-5-layers-of-web-accessibility Ted DRAKE -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account) I'll just address one you raised Jens. Google does not currently parse external Javascript files. So unless Fairfax uses simple inline Javascript, and exposes spiderable URLS, that's probably good enough for most of us to use progressive enhancement methodology . Ask Lucas. When he gets back from SG Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. I average 80 percent or more end up sitting down every time I perform this test. The short three question test is not scientific. It is not technically accurate. But as an illustrative tool to raise accessibility awareness, it is 100 percent effective. Here in the USA, 20 percent of the population is disabled. That's sixty million people. Many of these disabilities have no connection with web accessibility. If you believe web accessibility provides no revenue return for a site owner, think again. Those who possess the wealth and spend the money are those who are sitting down. They are the ones that vote. It only took one blind person in California to bring down target.com, using a law not written to address web accessibility. Accessibility is not about the law. It's about doing the right thing. And when it comes to web accessibility, everyone at some point will be a disabled web user. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw ??where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.? --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
Web accessibility is being more properly handled by browser creators using magnification functionality, which more effectively provides a better, more satisfying user experience because images, as well as text, can be magnified. While previous magnification functionality has required users to scroll horizontally, that, too, is being addressed by browser creators. So designers can be a good bridge to a better future for users, ultimately the browser creators will provide better solutions than we can...and I'm a visually impaired user who does not want to have a better view of only the text, but the entire layout as designed. Rick On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Dennis Lapcewich dlapcew...@fs.fed.uswrote: If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. I average 80 percent or more end up sitting down every time I perform this test. The short three question test is not scientific. It is not technically accurate. But as an illustrative tool to raise accessibility awareness, it is 100 percent effective. Here in the USA, 20 percent of the population is disabled. That's sixty million people. Many of these disabilities have no connection with web accessibility. If you believe web accessibility provides no revenue return for a site owner, think again. Those who possess the wealth and spend the money are those who are sitting down. They are the ones that vote. It only took one blind person in California to bring down target.com, using a law not written to address web accessibility. Accessibility is not about the law. It's about doing the right thing. And when it comes to web accessibility, everyone at some point will be a disabled web user. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw “…where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
2009/7/2 Dennis Lapcewich dlapcew...@fs.fed.us: If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I'd be careful of overstating the case like this, as it can undermine the whole argument. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
I think it is pretty good. But one slight irony/anomaly - the 'low vision' link is in pretty small font. Took me a while to find it... notetoselftime for new glasses prescription/notetoself jim On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Jens-Uwe Korffjko...@fairfaxdigital.com.au wrote: Hi all, I believe making sites accessible is very important. We are all used to ramps near stairs, lifts near escalators, lowered curbs at intersections. We need to get used to baking in time into our projects for accessible elements. Such elements are hidden headings (to aid semantics), skip links (to aid navigation), non-Javascript styles (to enable interaction with all content) and also high-contrast style sheets for vision-impaired users. I don't believe that integrating accessibility into a project adds a significant cost to a project anyway. I found that some of these elements take quite some time to integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an hour because you also have to edit the script. If you haven't considered accessibility in your company before you'll find that a lot of time goes by convincing the backing parties (Product Managers, Project Managers) to take it on board. For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. They're not pretty, but usable. The biggest challenge with this kind of CSS is to keep up with development and remind oneself to update the code. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- _ Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
On 30 Jun 2009, at 16:46, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/ ). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. They're not pretty, but usable. I believe a better solution to this issue is to work at the level of the browser, or operating system, rather than on site by site basis. i.e creating really intelligent browser plug-ins or applications that are able to interpret the mess on the internet and make it more usable to all. This solution means that everyone could customise their experience to make it suitable for them. On the smh travel site you have only two options (normal and low vision) to cater for the many hundreds of levels of vision impairment. The current situation seems to be that most designers do nothing about accessibility, a few make an attempt and fail, but only a few get anywhere towards succeeding. If a company/designer has a certain amount of time/money to spend on accessibility, perhaps the best way to spend it would be to donate it to free accessibility projects. I think this would probably have a greater positive effect on the web. After all, the few people that do spend any time at all on making their websites accessible, probably aren't going to be experts in accessibility, so probably won't do a very good job of it. Perhaps the WSG would be a good institution for co-ordinating such a scheme for donating money to accessible software projects? Andy *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
At 6/29/2009 11:46 PM, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: I found that some of these elements take quite some time to integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an hour because you also have to edit the script. By non-Javascript states do you mean that the website should work in the absence of JavaScript? I like to think that this is where web development should begin, with JavaScript added to enhance, not to provide core functionality. For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. FYI, when I click on Low vision and get the high-contrast stylesheet, that right-most menu pick changes to High contrast and is highlighted, indicating that I am now on the high-contrast page. I click it again and I return to the starting stylesheet and the menu pick changes to Normal contrast. This is inconsistent -- first you're using the menu pick as a sign post to another state, and then you're using it as a current state indicator. Was this deliberate? It feels broken to me. Usually I click on menu items in order to go to the named item or to invoke the named change. You're using the menu pick initially in this way, but after you begin using it, it becomes an indicator of the current state rather than a sign post pointing off-stage. I would choose just one of those models, leaning toward sign post. If you want to indicate the current state, I would display both states and highlight the current one. Also, to ditto Jim Croft, it's terribly ironic that this menu pick becomes large enough for a person with limited vision to read only after it's been selected. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
Hi, thank you for your thoughts and feedback. After all, the few people that do spend any time at all on making their websites accessible, probably aren't going to be experts in accessibility, so probably won't do a very good job of it. Yes and no. If we had no pioneers which inherently cannot make a very good job we wouldn't have innovation. I rather make a not-so-good attempt in accessibility than leaving it and wait for others to come up with something. FYI, when I click on Low vision and get the high-contrast stylesheet, that right-most menu pick changes to High contrast ... I know. As I said we are in the process of changing low vision to high contrast and that's what you get in the interim. Sorry. Will be cleaned up in one of the future releases. it's terribly ironic that this menu pick becomes large enough for a person with limited vision to read only after it's been selected. Well, you know that you've got theory and practice. In theory I agree with you and would make the link large and contrasty. In practice however we are bound by the constraints of a design to which many groups have to say yay or nay. The above-the-fold area is the most competitive part of any design. Responding to Jim's comment about [people too proud to wear] glasses: You would be surprised how many people are in that very same situation. They make up a significant number who actually benefit from accessible websites. Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
