Jason Hiner of ZDNet posted a list of nice features of the beta Google Chrome web browser. I agree with his list of five best new features. I do have a couple of accessibility observations though.

1. New Tab Page – features a page that shows thumbnails of your most visited Web sites, a list of your recent bookmarks, and a search box that allows you to search your history.   Hopefully, the history tab has accessibility alt tag support for the thumbnails. This tab could be a handy navigation aid.
2. Web Application Support – allows you to create desktop, start menu or quick launch icons for your web applications.  Hopefully these icons are 508 compliant.  This could be very helpful.

I hope this browser has assistive technology for the blind.  The increased speed could help make usability better for the sighted and those with disabilities.

Using contrasting gray scale to contrast information is very helpful.  I like this use of contrasting color by the Safari browser team at Apple.  Notice that the search words are highlighted in white and the first word found is in yellow.  All other text has a gray background.  This helps put things in context and helps the user find the search word quickly.  This same feature could be used for other applications:

• Text editors – could use contrasting colors to help highlight the script construct being edited.
• Word processors – could use gray scale contrast to highlight the sentence and paragraph being edited or selected.
• Web Browsers – could highlight only the text or object being viewed, (as defined by the mouse pointer location).
• Photo editing software – could brighten the pixel area being edited and dim the rest of the photo.
• Code debuggers – could highlight the trace walk-back item and dim the other statements.

You get the idea.  This feature should be optional.  For many low vision users, contrast is a great way to pin-point something and make it obvious.

Both Mac OS/X and Windows Vista have magnifiers for their low vision users.  Microsoft has added features that help the user place the magnified content into context.  With limited resources, both Apple and Microsoft have moved the magnifier to the bottom of their list of upgraded feature requirements.  They get their “ticky marks” for having a magnifier, however some focus is required.  I would add this list of requirements to their development plans.

1. Provide Text smoothing. – Apple provides image smoothing but not text smoothing. When text is magnified beyond 4x, the user can see “digital jag”.  The text has raged edges where the magnifier shows individual pixels.  This could be resolved.  Performance issues will have to be overcome.  Commercial magnifiers have this feature.
2. Enable the magnifier to follow cursor movement. – OS/X has this.  This should be provided by all magnifiers.  The user should be able to turn this feature on/off quickly.
3. Provide a magnification spotlight. – This will allow the user to only magnify a small area of the screen.  This helps with context.  Windows allows the user to determine the size of the magnification rectangle.  All magnifiers need this feature.  The user should be able to toggle between full screen and spotlight quickly.
4. Do not use an on-screen preferences window.  – Some commercial magnifiers have an on-screen magnifier preference window.  This is annoying and requires the user to have to find it or worse, move it out of the way.  Mac OS/X uses the System Preferences menu option to set magnifier options.  Shortcut keys could remove the need for an on-screen window.
5. Provide keyboard shortcuts.  – Shortcuts should be one-handed.  Shortcuts are needed for; toggling magnification on/off, moving the magnification focus up/down/left/right, switching from full screen/spotlight and increasing/decreasing magnification. This would help with keeping magnified information in context.  Sighted users who are working with visually impaired users would GREATLY APPRECIATE this support!
6. Provide navigation assistance.  Shortcut keys are needed to move the magnification focus to vertical/horizontal areas of the screen as well as the next data entry control or default button.  Scrolling shortcuts are needed as well.  IBM OS/2 had this feature with their magnifier.  IBM used the numeric keypad to move magnification and the mouse pointer to one of nine areas of the screen.  What a help!
7. Provide individual window magnification.  – Magnifying individual windows on the desktop allows the desktop context to be maintained.  The user does not have to turn magnification off/on or navigate long distances to find another application icon on the desktop.  This is especially helpful to sighted users who are working with visually impaired users on their machine.

Assistive technology needs to keep up with the OS.  Investment in assistive technology should be continuous.  Apple and Microsoft have magnifiers.  They need to be encouraged to do more.

Section 508 – There is a need to update the 508 standard with consideration for low vision users who uses magnification to access web pages.  The 508 standard contains detail about html tags to help screen readers, but contains very little for screen magnifier users.

Assistive technology magnifiers could use some additional features as well.  For this post, I will focus on the web page design requirements to help low vision users with magnification.

• Use clean design and consistency in page layout.  This helps all users find information and navigate quicker.
• Maintain context by grouping related information.  This will help the magnifier user to find all of the related information quickly.
• Do not use roll-over pop-ups.  Some popular news sites use mouse roll-over pop-ups to display additional information.  Magnifier users use the mouse to navigate the magnified text.
• Rolling over these pop-ups is not an optional event.  Sighted users do not use the mouse to navigate a column of text and may never triger the pop-ups.  Closing the pop-ups slows down consumption of information and causes difficulty in finding the place within the text to continue reading.  In many cases, these pop-ups are not even relevant to the story.  In some cases they are advertisements and are nothing more than web page spam.
• Provide intra-page links to help with navigation.  Remember, navigating a magnified page takes longer than a non-magnified page.  Links for top, bottom, key items in list or FAQ items help the magnification user get somewhere useful quickly.
• Limit horizontal navigation time.  By keeping a column of text within the view of a 4x magnified area, the user will not have to move the mouse to continue reading.

Try using a screen magnifier.  Both Windows Vista and Mac OS/X have them as part of the OS.  There are commercial products on the market you can get a trial version of also.  Magnification is a tool that low vision users become dependent upon and you can design web pages to help them be more

SECTION 508 – There are obvious issues with color being used to obtain a user response or depicting information within a specific context. Section 508 calls for alternative graphic or textual information to obtain a user response or depict information. I am not color blind, so I am not personally affected by web pages that instruct the user to “click the green button” or “fill in the fields with the red labels”. But for color blind individuals, this is a significant issue. Fortunately, Section 508 has easy remedies for color blind accessibility. Jim Thatcher’s blog post does an outstanding job of discussing color accessibility requirements and resolutions.

For me, contrast is the real problem. Apple has popularized the “Aqua” look and feel and Microsoft Vista has emulated it to perfection. The Mac OS/X development team did such an outstanding job of making the innovative OS accessible and then they fell short on their selection of colors. To me, the Apple web site is another example of problems with contrasting colors. Combinations of pastel colors on a white background make it difficult for visually impaired web page visitors to find and consume information.

Section 508 calls for the presentation of text, (and images of text), in electronic documents to have a default contrast ratio of at least 5:1, except if the text is pure decoration.  Large-scale text, (or images of large-scale text), must have a default contrast ratio of at least 3:1.  Tools are available to analyze color contrast.

I have some questions about these requirements

• Is a contrast ratio of 5:1 adequate? If Apple and Microsoft are using a 5:1 ratio, it is not usable to me and many other visually impaired people I talk to.
• Is decorative text insignificant to the visually impaired? Decorative text has content, or why show it?  Why isn’t there a functional equivalent?
• Why are foreground/background colors the only concern for contrast specifications?  What about window border contrast to help distinguish one window from another?  What about contrast ratios between buttons or links and background color?
• Should there be contrast specifications for rollover graphics?  Graphic-to-graphic contrast is an issue, especially when the rollover implies an optional action that can be taken.
• Can size alternatives overcome contrast issues?  People are always offering me magnification as a work around when what I am having is contrast issues.  I believe I could drive a car if I could drive at night because of the fact that I can see lights better than shapes, (ridiculous example I know, but I can dream can’t I?).
• Why aren’t spacing requirements specified?  Like contrasted items placed too close together can be very confusing to the visually impaired.  I have significant problems with low contrast links placed too close together.
• Should color contrast requirements be specified for lists?  I find it very helpful to have the beginning of list items differentiated.

For the totally blind, the 508 standards are adequate.  For the low vision web user, the standards do not go far enough.  Perhaps this will be resolved in the future.

SECTION 508 – Web page navigation can be an issue for the visually impaired. Clutter nad repetitive navigation links can keep the visually impaired from finding the main content of a web page. Section 508 calls for the web page designer to use a skip navigation link to help the blind reader find the page main content. Jim Thatcher’s blog post provides samples of how to design a web page for screen reader navigation. By placing a link at the top of a page, the blind reader can find the navigation link quickly and bypass listening to clutter, advertising and repetitive navigation information.

<a href=”#Main”>
<img alt=”Skip to main content” src=”1.gif” width=”1″>
</a>
… Search form, select menus, left navigation
… Right navigation content
<a name=”Main”></a>
… Main content

This works great for static, text oriented web pages. But what about?

• dynamic web pages that have content that is generated based on user triggered events? Can the “skip to main content link” access the dynamic content? The web page programmer should provide skip links based on the content generated.
• dynamic Web 2.0 pages that have ajax, dynamic HTML or java scripts? Alternative text information can help, but the screen reader cannot consume some of this information. The 508 and WCAG 2.0 standards call for the web page designer to provide an equivalent experience for the disabled. If possible, the web page designer could provide an alternative web page for the screen reader to consume. This would be at great expense to the web page provider and would most likely not be acceptable to the accessibility standards purest.
• web pages with multiple “main content areas”? When possible, web pages should be designed with a single purpose. The web designer should provide multiple links to the multiple task areas on the page.
• web pages with mashups or content from other web sites? As with dynamically generated content, the web page designer can provide skip navigation links to mashup content. The web page designer should try not to include non-accessible content from other sites.

Providing alternative content paths to offer an equivalent experience may not satisfy the purest, but I would swallow my pride and accept it if I could use the web site. More research is needed to see what others are doing to improve navigation within a page. Any comments or ideas?

By 2008, all states must test all children for standard language, math and science skills. These results are to be reported publicly. What about visually impaired children? Many of them spend hours learning braille, orientation and mobility, assistive technology, living skills and occupational therapy. They spend time learning these skills and forego learning the skills being assessed. Some children spend additional hours learning subjects that sighted students receive instruction on during regular hours.

In my case, there were no courses available to teach mobility, assistive technology or living skills outside of special institutions. I was not sent to the Michigan School for the Blind. My parents thought it best for me to receive the same education as my brothers. I attended public school and was passed along and left behind. I did receive new technology low vision aides in middle school. This helped me participate and catch up. The 1960’s had little to offer visually impaired students outside of specialized institutions. There were no expectations for me. My parents wanted me to have the same experience and if I could overcome, I would be the better for it.

The pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Children with visual impairments are to be offered the same learning experience as sighted children. One way of doing this is through distance learning. Computer technology that follows accessibility standards can level the playing field and give visually impaired students the same learning experience.

• Courses must be accessible via screen reader and assistive technology.
• Linked web material must be accessible.
• Multimedia must have alternative information.
• Web 2.0 synchronized content must have audible queues for the visually impaired student.
• Visually impaired instructors must have lesson creation process accessibility.
• Audio and video players must have keyboard accessibility.

Distance learning can be done at any time, allowing visually impaired students the ability to attend regular courses with their sighted peers. This gives visually impaired students the opportunity to participate in standard assessments.

OPINION – A bill sponsored by Mike Castle (R-Delaware) to shame higher education for high costs is expected to pass and be signed into law by President Bush. I do not think this bill is incorrect in its message. I think Congress could look at on-line education as a valid, lower cost alternative. To me, this bill shows a lack of imagination and vision. Troy University (on-line) in Alabama is serving thousands of students at a fraction of the cost of traditional colleges and universities. Community colleges are cost efficient alternatives as well.

Congress should be looking at:

• Making on-line learning accessible so all can attend.
• Improving learning standards and technology to cut costs and deliver education to anyone, anywhere.
• Providing tax payer funds to the most efficient with the best results.
• Providing support for needed degree programs that can improve our society.
• Cutting tax-payer support for those institutions you plan to shame.

Shaming wasteful and high cost education providers is appropriate. We can do more. I encourage Representative Mike Castle to contact us at DigitalChalk for answers!

“Section 508″ has a 1998 amendment to the Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology that is developed by or purchased by Federal Agencies be accessible by people with disabilities.  The 1986 version of Section 508 established non-binding guidelines for technology.  The 1998 version created binding and enforceable standards that are a part of the Federal Procurement Process.   Section 508 does not apply to private sector web sites or public sector web sites which are not U. S. Federal Agency sites.  This doesn’t include Congress, the Judiciary or to agencies using Federal funds.  The purpose of Section 508 is to use the leverage of the Federal Procurement Process to enforce accessibility for Federally funded technology.  It has been 10 years since Bill Clinton signed the amendment into law.  Shouldn’t Congress, the Judiciary and all Federal Agencies comply as well? What’s good for contractors and Federal Agencies should be good for all.  Ten years is a long time to let Congress come up to speed.

Federal agencies must purchase electronic and information technology that is accessible to people with disabilities, provided that it is not an undue burden on the agency.  This means that if an accessible solution is available it should win the bid.  What if all vendors applying for a contract do not have a 508 compliant product?  What does the word should mean? I guess Bill Clinton would have to tell us what the meaning of the word should is.

Section 508 has 16 standards that must be satisfied in order to be compliant.  Most pre-Web 2.0 sites do not have to be dumbed down in order to comply.  The 508 functional standards were approved in 2001 and do not cover Web 2.0 web sites or dynamic content technologies.  What is the best approach for Web 2.0 web sites?  Should the sites be dumbed down?  Should alternatives be offered? IBM has made strides to help here and have done an honest jobe of trying to establish tools to help.  We will see if the next 508 standards amendment can help with this difficult topic.

MY OPINION – The U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2 – 1 that paper money discriminates against the blind. The court agrees with a lower court 2006 ruling that the federal government has to provide a workable solution. The court does not dictate the remedy. Some of the solutions, such as different sized money, may be worse for the blind. Smaller bills may be easily lost. Raising print or a seal on the bill may be the best solution. Bills may not last as long in circulation though. The cost may be higher than the value of the fix. Not all advocates for the blind agree that the U. S. currency discriminates against the blind. This case raises other questions

• Do merchants have to supply braille receipts?
• Should manufacturers provide braille instructions with their products?
• Do blind people need multiple retail clerks to verify purchase integrity?
• How about restaurants, how do blind people know if they are given the appropriate portions?
• Do towns and cities discriminate against blind people because they do not implement GPS audio maps?
• Do movie theaters discriminate because they do not provide alternative text/braille devices describing the action in the movie?
• Should all sporting events provide audio narratives for the visually impaired?

Not all situations in life discriminate against the blind. Blind people are not all victims. Life presents challenges to all people. Blind people have different challenges. It is society’s responsibility to do its best to accommodate all people allowing them to participate. This should not be legislated by the courts. I believe
1.    The blind community needs to help establish accessibility guidelines and standards.
2.    Responsible people will adapt the standards because it is the right thing to do.
Many accessibility standards are good for the population at large. Activism needs to come from individuals, not government mandates. Grant and contract providers can specify guidelines. Courts should not impose standards in all cases.