Joe Dolson: Accessible Web Design

This new book from Packt Publishing & Nirav Mehta is a quick and effective introduction to developing websites specifically targeted at mobile device users. I say “users” for a reason — - one of the strongest advantages to the book is a strong focus on considering your user and their needs as a key element of mobile web development.

My overall reaction to this book was positive. It covers a wide variety of key issues for mobile web programming in an easily understood manner. The book is targeted primarily at developers who already have some experience at web development and design, so it doesn’t delve into any serious detail when it comes to server-side programming or HTML coding, but instead makes a point of emphasizing places where the mobile web is different from internet interaction on a desktop device.

Mehta goes out of his way on many occasions to emphasize the serious importance of considering who (and what!) will be using your mobile web application.

“Any website accessed from a mobile device is mobile web — - whether it’s been tailored to work on a mobile or not!” Mobile Web Development, Nirav Mehta, page 10

The book covers a wide range of issues — - from developing for mobile devices using a “lowest common denominator” plan to implementing highly dynamic mobile applications which adapt automatically to the device currently in use. The text is easy to understand and follows a logical progression, starting with the mobile web development practices which are most similar to the development of standard web applications before moving into the areas which are very specifically targeted towards mobile devices.

This isn’t to say that the book doesn’t have a few flaws. I identified three areas where I really would have liked to seen better work.

Editing

In general, the copy editing on this text was pretty poor. The editing improved as I got further into the book (or I became more oblivious to it), but the introductory chapters had a lot of problems. There weren’t a lot of typos — - but the grammar was noticeably lacking. The book is rife with sentences like this:

“We will need a recharge of patience if we wanted to watch a movie preview on low speed mobile networks.”

I’m not a member of the grammar police, but I’m certainly sympathetic. Professionally published books simply shouldn’t contain the kinds of errors found in this book.

Code Examples

The author talks about following web standards as a critical element of mobile web development. That’s great. It is, however, a serious pet peeve of mine to see code examples which don’t reflect the text of the book. The very first code example in the book is this:

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="handheld" href="mobile.css">

The text preceding it states “Here’s how you can add an alternative stylesheet link in your XHTML page.” I see a problem here. Yes, the author does explain at a later point in the book that all XHTML elements must be closed: but it’s a simple fact of life that most people referencing this book will be far more likely to simply reference the code as is. This is simply a mistake; but it’s not one that should have made it through a review of the book.

I’ll admit that I haven’t gone through and checked the validation of every code example. Most of them seemed solid and accurate. There are definitely examples which wouldn’t be valid under the XHTML DocType, but I’m not adept enough with XHTML-MP to know off-hand if the same is true within the mobile profile DocType.

Appendices

Simply put, there aren’t any. There were numerous points in the book where I thought to myself that an appendix would be great. A list of resources cited by topic, a section summarizing the syntax of VXML, tables showing the differences between XHTML and XHTML-MP or between CSS and WCSS. These kinds of resources would have been tremendous benefits to the overall reference value of the text.

Overall

This is a worthwhile book. Even though I wouldn’t recommend trusting the code examples, the truth is that you should never simply take code examples as written — - you learn best by taking an example and re-purposing it for your own needs. Mobile Web Development will introduce you to the key issues for mobile web programming and design in a manner which can give you a quick start on mobile web application development.

Well, I’ve finally managed to read the entirety of the Summer issue of Search Marketing Standard — and I must say that I found it to be a pleasant read. The articles were well-written and interesting, which certainly makes for an overall high-quality experience.

If I had to say there was anything missing for me, it would be that I felt the material didn’t necessarily challenge me much. The articles didn’t make me confront new ideas about how search marketing could work, or challenge my notions of the world of search. Granted, I’m pretty well plugged-in to the industry: The fact that I’ve read moderately extensively in the search marketing field MIGHT just have an impact…. I’m not viewing the subject from the perspective of the intermediate marketing manager or business-owner who really needs the information, after all.
Read more: Search Marketing Standard: Print News for Online Marketing

Jim Byrne, the founder of the Guild of Accessible Web Designers, has recently published a collection of practical tips to help in constructing accessible web sites. If you’re confused or overwhelmed by the complexity of technical discussions on accessibility, this may be a great way into learning the basics of web accessibility.

Jim’s tips, rather than focusing on the esoteric details of dealing with multiple populations, provides simple ideas with explanations why these issues are important for accessibility.

You can buy it now at Lulu.com for only $13.34 (PDF) or for 19.95 in print.

The book is a successor to his earlier “50 Hot to Touch Accessible Web Design Tips” - there are a number of significant changes, so it’s worth considering the new version if you’ve already purchased the original. Accessibility is a constantly changing field, so keeping up with the changes through cheap PDF downloads has it’s advantages!

If you’re already an experienced practitioner of web accessibility, this book can still serve a purpose for you: think of it as a checklist. Many of the tips Jim makes are fundamental guidelines to keep in mind when focusing on accessibility: and some of them are easy to overlook when wrapped up in the design process.

This isn’t to say that the book isn’t without warts. I have to admit that, although the book provides a great background to accessibility it’s truly not very thorough. It skims over issues, it doesn’t explain anything in any great detail. If you want a quick checklist of things you should consider, it’s great. If you want to know why - you’ll need to pick a different resource. There’s room to disagree with some of the tips expressed here - but you’ll need further reading in order to start getting into these deeper accessibility conversations.

I would like to think of David Berlind, the executive editor of ZDNet, as an advocate for web accessibility. He skims the edges of advocating accessibility; giving mouth service to the principles of accessibility and giving some indications that he considers web accessibility of some importance. But, fundamentally, he doesn’t get it and he doesn’t support it.

I referenced an article of his in May, on the subject of the lawsuit against Target Corporation. I only mentioned the article briefly, but today I feel I need to cover it more thoroughly.

Read more: David Berlind on Web Accessibility

Looking over my site statistics the today I noticed a few referrals from a site called Search and Go. Having never heard of the site, I figured I’d check it out and see what was up. Well, turns out it’s a project which is still in beta development which intends to provide a comprehensive information portal including articles, news, a directory, and various other tools.

One of the key aspects for Search and Go (as one might conclude from the title) is that it’s intended to be fully accessible by mobile internet devices, and also has a featured directory section of sites tailored for mobile devices.

Looking at their code, I’m pretty happy - they are using very clean, semantically appropriate design. Since it’s still in beta, and the front page is clearly labeled as a work in progress, I’m not going to go out of my way to criticize the site’s layout, although I’d suggest making their navigational skip links a little more transparent. That is, possible to be made visible. There’s a very interesting article on the subject of skip links by Gez Lemon and Mike Cherim available at Accessites.org which is worth looking at on this subject.

As for my own site, I was thrilled to see it organized under the category Internet > Web Accessibility > Accessible Designers. The sheer novelty of the existence of this category is worth noting, since many directory sites take so little effort to consider accessibility as to lack a category for it entirely.

Good luck, Search and Go!

Related Website: 220-603 220-603 Certification Practice Exam Test Questions

I just became aware today, through the Guild of Accessible Web Designers newsletter, of an internet directory featuring exclusively accessible web sites. This is a great way to make the accessible web more usable for individuals with disabilities - although it has its limitations.

My first reaction, of course, is that in an ideal world, this would actually be equivalent to the Open Directory Project - because, of course, eventually all sites will be accessible! But, of course, for now, this is a very meaningful directory purely because there is such a paucity of meaningfully accessible web sites.

The only thing which will make this directory truly useful, however, will be to really start filling it up with great sites. I intend to submit my own accessible sites to the directory to maximize the potential of the site.

Directories are difficult beasts - they’re huge, unwieldy, and frequently just not used that much - search is much easier. However, developing a means to specifically search for accessible sites has a target audience which can really benefit from the difference, so I hope that this directory can take off.

Limitations to the Net Guide

I said limitations, and I did mean it. The directory itself has imperfect accessibility. The search results page itself failes to validate - a minor flaw, but it’s lacking a required attribute on a Javascript block. In addition, there is no <noscript></noscript> tag set to provide information for users without Javascript support. Is this Javascript critical to the functioning of the site? No. In fact, it seems like it’s not even being used in the page - but regardless, for an accessible directory I’d have higher standards.

The design of the site is literally LITTERED with empty table cells. This is, sad to say, a classic example of a highly complex and screen reader-unfriendly table-based layout.

Many links provide only a moderate background color change to indicate that they are active; no links have a useful indication for their :active or :focus states, which is necessary for keyboard navigators to easily locate their cursor.

All in all, the site has great potential; but has not yet realized that potential. I can see that they have a good aim in mind, and I fully support that ideal - but I also hope that they are working hard to improve the usability and accessibility of their own site in order to set a positive example.

groundswell

1. A sudden gathering of force, as of public opinion: a groundswell of antiwar sentiment.

2. A broad deep undulation of the ocean, often caused by a distant storm or an earthquake.

I think, of course, that definition number one is most applicable here. What I’m finding particularly interesting about the recent surge in public commentary on WCAG 2.0 is how late it is in coming. This eleventh hour response, coming just days before the May 31st deadline for comments on the working draft document, seems somewhat tardy.

The document has been in progress since January 25th, 2001. Now, of course I can see why there was no need, at that time, for a huge response. At that time, and through most of the period of WCAG 2.0 development, the document was simply an acknowledgement that WCAG 1.0 was insufficient. The abstract of that first edition states:

Primarily, this is the first attempt to write checkpoints that may be applied to a wider range of technologies and that may be understood by a more varied audience. Since this Working Draft builds on WCAG 1.0 it has the same aim: explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities.

At that time, their goals were straightforward and clear. The simple statement of the abstract was to make checkpoints have broader applicability and to make them more easily understood. In the second version, of August 24, 2001, they in fact state explicitly their goal "to use wording that may be understood by a more varied audience".

So far, so good. However, in the version of June 30th, 2005 a significant change appears in the abstract. This version no longer commits to a more understandable document. I’ll provide this abstract version in full:

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) covers a wide range of issues and recommendations for making Web content more accessible. This document contains principles, guidelines, success criteria, benefits, and examples that define and explain the requirements for making Web-based information and applications accessible. “Accessible” means to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, and others. Following these guidelines will also make your Web content more accessible to the vast majority of users, including older users. It will also enable people to access Web content using many different devices - including a wide variety of assistive technology.

WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology-specific. Guidance about satisfying the success criteria in specific technologies as well as general information about interpreting the success criteria are provided in separate documents. An Introduction to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Working Draft Documents is also available.

Until WCAG 2.0 advances to W3C Recommendation, the current and referenceable document is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0), published as a W3C Recommendation May 1999.

Try as you might, you can read no indication that this document will aim to be understandable. This is a significant and crucial change in goals. At this time, you might expect a protest to begin. Still; the drafts were a long way from being completed, and there was no real reason to see the full consequences of this change. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.

Unfortunately, this revision of the web content accessibility guidelines has been in progress for such a long time that an expectation of completion has been difficult to ascertain. Finally, now that they have announced last call, the community becomes aware that THIS document is the one we’ve been waiting for; and that it does not hold up to scrutiny. The last call working draft of April 26th contains a strong call for comments:

The W3C strongly encourages broad community review of this Last Call Working Draft, and submission of comments on any issues which you feel could present a significant barrier to future adoption and implementation of WCAG 2.0. In particular, we encourage you to comment on the success criteria and the conformance model. Reviewers are encouraged to provide suggestions for how to address issues as well as supportive feedback and endorsements of the document.

Although the surge of commentary in the last few weeks may be late in coming, we can only hope that the committee is sincere in there request and acknowledges the extensive criticism the document is now receiving.

Further reading on WCAG 2.0 as of this week:

• Roger Johansson - "WCAG 2 disregards Web standards"
• Kevin Potts - "In Joe we Trust"
• Gez Lemon - "Formal Objection to WCAG Claiming to Address Cognitive Limitations"
• Joe Clark - "Abandon all hope"
• Joe Clark - "Call for response from the Web Standards Project"
• Joe Clark - "To hell with swearing"

 Tags:

• WCAG 2.0
• accessible web design
• W3C
• web standards