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:

• Discoverability of Functionality
• Usability of said Function
• Discoverability of Function Feedback

Best practice in any rich media format should always ensure that these three limitations are dealt with for all users.

Read more: Accessibility and Usability issues with AJAX

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)

One common suggestion concerning the search optimization of images is to use the alt attribute to place keywords relevant to the image contents.

I really loathe this.

If it was an amazing, perfect, incredible search optimization technique which would bring absolutely fantastic traffic I still wouldn’t recommend the technique. Appropriate alt attributes are one of the most critical areas for the user experience of screen reader users — - using them inappropriately is a great way to give this section of your market a horrible experience on your site.

Read more: Search Optimization, Accessibility, and Images: Best Practices

Recently, I wrote a series of posts about what I choose to call pseudo-accessibility — - part of which is the provision of website tools which emulate native browser functionality.

The reason these tools proliferate is because of developer laziness, not because of developer interest in accessibility. For some strange reason, it’s considered more difficult to educate the user about their browser than it is to build a text-resizing widget. (Granted, text-resizing widgets aren’t exactly rocket science.)

Ian Lloyd, of Accessify, has taken to video trying to address the text-resizing problem. You can see the video at his own relevant blog post — - Teach a man to fish (or how to resize text).

The video isn’t necessarily a finished product. As of this writing, it’s in it’s second version , as Ian has been graciously accepting comments and re-working the video in order to provide the best video tutorial possible on the subject.

Video, of course, isn’t a perfect solution — - but the transcript is available (not on Accessify.com yet, however,) and this is a good start towards user (and developer) education.

Thanks, Ian!

Thanks to Accessites and Mike Cherim for bringing this to my attention.

This is a task which comes up over and over again for many developers. There are a lot of jobs in maintaining web sites. Our work doesn’t always come with the dream experience of a brand-new web site. Even if a new web site is a major goal, there will inevitably be large quantities of legacy content which will need to be worked into the new accessible design. Working on legacy websites can pose a number of subtle challenges.

If you can’t redesign, what can you do to work towards a more perfect site?

Read more: Working with legacy websites

At Cre8asite Forums this week, a lengthy discussion on the ultimate value of pure CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) based layout over the use of tables has been taking place. Sometimes, living in the sheltered world of accessible and standards-based design, I can lose touch with the fact that many people out there simply don’t accept some of the same guidelines I work with every day — - and that this does not, in any way, mean that they haven’t given the subject a fair shot. Very good arguments have been made to defend each side.

On the whole, I think this discussion is an old, worn-out subject: those who won’t use tables generally don’t use them out of principle, and those who do use them out of pragmatism and a justified awareness that principles don’t build websites. I want to review the question once more, however, ignoring the entire question of principle.

Read more: Why not tables? Is CSS really better?

Thursday night last week, I attended a musical theater production. It was a production which was being provided with audio description, American Sign Language interpretation, and captioning. Obviously, the goals were to provide an all around accessible experience of this production.

And these things were all well done: the audio description was clear and simple. It neither interfered with the production nor gave any kind of bias to the actions of the characters. Although I don’t personally know ASL, the interpreters appeared to do an excellent job. (They were even costumed appropriately!) I was not actually seated in a place where I could view the captioning, unfortunately, so I can’t judge that. I guess you needed to plan ahead in order to view such things.

The worst part of the experience was the building itself. And that was…questionable.
Read more: The Pains of Physical Accessibility