508 Standards: Text Alternatives For Images
Originally posted August 1, 2008
508 STANDARD – The single most important thing you can do to make a web page accessible is to include alternative text for images. When you use alternative text, you allow people who use talking browsers and screen readers to access the images.
- Use the alt attribute on every img element of your HTML code. Describe the function of the image, not the image itself.
- If the image is inside an anchor element, then the alternative text should convey the purpose of the link.
- If the image is not active, then the alternative text should convey the same information as the image.
- If the image conveys no new information, then specify that with a null alternative, (alt=”").
Remember, the person with a vision impairment must receive the same content as a sighted person. If you have an authoring system for instructors for example, you should allow the instructor to add alternative text for the content being created.
Apple’s 3Q New Products
Originally posted July 28, 2008
Jason D. O’Grady & David Morgenstern posted an interesting blog entry on ZDNet today, “Mystry Solved: Apple’s New Product is iTablet”. They are guessing that the 3Q announcement of new products will include this touch-screen tablet PC that utilizes 100 patents and parts of other products like iPhone. If they are right and this product is to be introduced and be successful, it could mean:
- The mouse could be dead – no need for a mouse with touch-screen gesture technology.
- Typing could be revolutionized – view specific keyboards could be introduced by each application.
- Navigation could be enhanced – with new standard gestures.
- Alternative views could be provided – with gestures and new application standard components.
- Context specific views/shortcuts could be created – taking advantage of smaller UI real estate.
This should be fun to see if this is a good guess and if so how it affects User Interfaces for accessibility.
Questions About Section 508
Originally posted July 25, 2008
“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.
Mice Should Die!
Originally posted July 23, 2008
ZDNet published a blog post by Adrian Kingsley-Houghes questioning the death of the computer mouse over the next few years. ZDNet referenced a sensationalist article in the BBC News, that the computer mouse will be extinct in the next few years and replaced by touch-screens and facial recognition technologies. A Gartner analyst predicts the demise of the mouse in the next 3 to 5 years.
I think the mouse will be replaced by touch-screen technologies. Let’s hope facial recognition technologies do not become the norm. Anyone who owns an iPhone knows the productivity of the finger gestures to zoom and navigate. I wonder:
- How productive are large touch-screens? Are they durable or affordable?
- Can the touch-screen interface be extended to include gestures for the visually impaired? This could include gestures for task automation.
- Can the intelligent keyboards on iPhone or Blakberry be used with the large touch-screen? This could provide task specific keyboard layouts.
- Could gestures be added to the interface to provide alternative summary views of a web page? Alternative views could include text only or sectional views.
- Could gestures be added to the interface to read just a paragraph or section of a web page?
- Could navigation gestures be added to the touch-screen interface? Gestures could include go to the next link, go to the submit button or go to the top of the page or menu bar.
What do you think? I would like to see the day where we only need our fingers to input information or navigate on a web page.
7 Cs of Accessibility
Originally posted July 20, 2008
The WCAG standard is certainly a very good standard to follow. There are simple things a web page designer can do to make a page more accessible.
- Contrast – select color schemes that have high contrast. Apple has made aqua and pastel color schemes popular, but for people with low vision, these color schemes are very difficult to read and navigate. This is especially important when you want a content object to be used for taking action. Provide multiple schemes that can be selected by the user. This will allow an option for all users with different accessibility needs.
- Context – group related content. People that use tools to zoom in to read content lose context when zoomed in. Don’t send them somewhere else on the page to do something. Keep content grouped together to keep the reader from having to go look for the next action to take. The content should have complete context when used. Use simple graphics that don’t require a degree in art to understand what their meaning is.
- Clutter-free – use less, more is not better. Keep the content purpose simple. Don’t provide information overload to users who want to use the page for a single purpose. This can reduce screen reader confusion and keep the context focused. Don’t duplicate content unless you believe it helps with navigation.
- Customary – be predictive. Follow typical and usual patterns. Don’t be so creative and clever that your web page navigation becomes a guessing game. There should be no question as to what options are available to the page user. Be obvious with navigation.
- Course simple – keep the path simple. Most web sites do not need more than ten pages to inform the user, gather information or provide services. Some large corporate sites never clean up their “out of date” content. That makes the site less usable and less useful. Avoid circular paths that imply a purpose that is never fulfilled, (I know that sounds obvious, but you would be surprised how many sites take users in circles.).
- Common sense – use good judgement. Common sense is not always used by web page designers when developing a web site. If simple design is good for accessibility then it is good for all users. Many web page designers think proving their personal creativity is more important than making the site usable.
- Current – keep the site current. Keeping the site current can reduce clutter, improve context and keep the course simple. It also makes the site more interesting to the reader.
Follow these simple rules and help make your web site accessible.
Firefox 3.0 Supports WAI-ARIA
Originally posted July 17, 2008
With Firefox 3.0 came a big accessibility enhancement in the form of WAI-ARIA (Web Accessibility Initiative – Accessible Rich Internet Applications) support. Internet Explorer, Safari and others have committed to support this browser standard. We will see when this happens. When I went to Firefox 3.0 help I found nothing about WAI-ARIA. I did find help for using a keyboard, using a mouse, fonts and colors, controlling web content and compatibility with assistive technologies. The sections on using a keyboard and fonts and colors were quite helpful and, I think, useful.
Browser accessibility can help third party application writers like DigitalChalk develop more accessible applications. Let’s keep encouraging browser development teams to make progress with the WAI-ARIA.
IBM Research Introduces Breakthrough for Visually Impaired
Originally posted July 8, 2008
IBM announced software to help the visually impaired report web site pages that are missing alternative text information to a database. Web site developers can then add the missing information making the web site pages accessible. The missing information is stored in a central database managed by IBM. IBM Research in Tokyo hopes this will help the Web site owner maintain the site. I don’t know if the software notifies the site owner or if the alternative information is checked for appropriate information. Malicious contributors could add invalid or obscene atlernative text. I like the idea behind this software if the original Web site is protected from malicious contributors.
WCAG 2.0 & ATAG 1.0 – Do These Standards Go Far Enough?
Originally posted June 13, 2008
As noted in my last post, the WCAG 2.0 standard released April 30 is greatly needed. The introduction of the time dimension to Web 2.0 pages is not clearly addressed in these standards. Streaming video along with parallel synchronous static content and dynamic animations provides a challenge to software developers and visually impaired users alike.
I have created a summary of the WCAG 2.0 standard, (WCAG 2). The summary includes a review of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guideline (ATAG) 1.0 standard as well. ILS is looking at these standards to make DigitalChalk more accessible. Hopefully, this overview helps your understanding of the new release of these standards.
WCAG 2.0 Standards: A Challenge for Software – A Needed Standard for the Visually Impaired
Originally posted May 28, 2008
AJAX, dynamic HTML, other client browser side technologies and Web 2.0 data integration have greatly enhanced the end users’ experience on the Web. With these technologies, persons with visual impairment have been given a challenge in being able to access the Web. Alternative information can be used to describe Flash animations and graphics, but screen readers alone cannot overcome synchronous presentation of parallel multimedia information.
Persons with visual impairments encounter a unique challenge when attempting to interact with current generation multimedia content developed online. Multimedia content including video, audio and animations are often presented to the user in a synchronous manner with other visual and text elements. Video displayed on a page at the same time with text transcripts, still images and presentation slides work to generate a rich, pleasing experience for sighted users. The introduction of a time element creates a burden for the visually impaired person who must consume the material in a serial (audio and tactile) fashion.
If the visually impaired person is to have a rich and equivalent experience, the system needs to present the material in a non-linear and asynchronous manner. This presents a technical challenge to software developers presenting multimedia in parallel streams of information. The visually impaired user must be queued to consume alternative information. The software must provide a way for the user to pause streams of information, consume alternative information and resume the stream. DigitalChalk is looking at ways to meet these challenges with its course authoring and delivery system.
Paper Money Discriminates Against the Blind?
Originally posted May 15, 2008
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.