If we call ourselves professionals, we owe it to our clients, their clients, and ourselves, to do our job properly. A chef must care about health, a builder must care about safety, and we must care about accessibility.
James Edwards, aka ‘Brothercake’ has published a very neat argument on the frequently-asked question “Why Accessibility?”
Read his comments at Why Accessibility? Because it’s our job!.
An interesting thought in indexing and handling page structure is the concept that different areas of a single page can be identified and considered independently from surrounding bodies of content. This particularly applies to specific and readily identifiable data-types, such as phone numbers, postal codes, or abbreviations; but can also be extended to include broader content labeling.
A well-structured XML document has an absolutely clear labeling system for data built into the structure. If you take any RSS feed, for example, the elements which identify <title>, <link> or <managingEditor> can’t readily be mistaken.
A well-structured, semantically sensible XHTML or HTML document doesn’t offer nearly the same degree of data particulation — - the higher level data elements can sometimes be fairly clear, as is the case with <address> or <cite> elements, but other potentially valuable elements end up providing relatively neutral value: <h2> or <div>.
Example:
Visit this site! http://www.joedolson.com/
I run into this, or into something like it all the time, and it’s pretty understandable why. Obviously, if you don’t know how to create a hyperlink, or if you’re working with a CMS which will automatically convert a URL into a hyperlink, this is the most reliable way to provide access to somebody else’s site.
Either they have the URL, and can use it “straight up” if they know how, or they can follow the hyperlink generated by the system. Nice and easy. I understand perfectly well why an inexperienced content manager might make use of hyperlinks au naturelle, or so to speak.
Every once in a while, somebody mentions to me how they’re concerned because their (or my) site didn’t “pass” some online accessibility evaluator or another. This always opens up the conversation for one big, complicated issue: why automated accessibility testing just doesn’t work.
This isn’t to say that automated testing doesn’t have a place; but it should never be considered the deciding factor for accessibility.
The Functional Accessibility Evaluator from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was pointed out to me recently. Naturally, I figured it was worth a look. In fact, it’s very interesting. (It has problems, but I’ll get to those.)
The Accessibility Cookbook: a Recipe for Disaster, by Aaron Cannon.
This is a very well-written article which provides an “insider’s” viewpoint from both an accessibility and an interface designer’s perspective.
The article remarks, in brief, on the importance of knowing the why’s and how’s of accessibility. If you don’t understand why or how you’re helping a disabled user, you are immediately opening up a gateway to create new barriers. It’s not about following a set of rules; it’s about sitting down and thinking about whether a given choice will actually benefit the user.
In accessibility, many choices aren’t black and white. Just following the guidelines is a good way to cause trouble!
Hat tip to Cameron Moll for the link.
This is not a technical article. You will not learn how to code AJAX by reading this; either in an accessible and usable fashion or otherwise. This is a conceptual article. It will run through basic user-interface issues with AJAX (and other rich media). These are the reasons that AJAX functionality can be a problem for users — - if you consider these issues carefully during development, it should greatly enhance the usability of your end product.
The basic limitations encountered with AJAX are threefold:
Best practice in any rich media format should always ensure that these three limitations are dealt with for all users.
For a major issue in accessibility, I have to say that this really hasn’t seen much press. Granted, major lawsuits tend to move slowly — - glacially, you might say. However, given the fact that the last announcement concerning the National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation lawsuit was in September of 2006, you’d expect some kind of blog coverage on the latest announcement.
In fact, I found it difficult to find anything about it at all, at first — - I only became aware of it because I was talking to a web development manager from Target. (Articles are now easy to find via Google News.)
At any rate, the major news is that the lawsuit has been granted federal class-action status.
Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Associated Press
Further, the Judge (Marilyn Patel) ruled that changes in Target’s web site since the date of filing do not provide grounds for dismissal of the suit.
Judge Patel’s order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit’s filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument. Associated Press
Turning the suit into a class action may place additional pressure on businesses to start considering web accessibility a priority. One can hope, at any rate!
See also: Update: Target ruling may force retailers to adjust Web sites (Computer World)
