Accessible to whom?

  • From: "BlindNews Mailing List" <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:18:46 -0400

IT-Director.com (UK)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Accessible to whom?

By Peter Abrahams

Peter Abrahams, Practice Leader, Accessibility and Usability, Bloor Research

In my last blog I discussed the case against Target. It generated a lively 
discussion with a number of readers. One of these comments was so serious that 
I decided I should start a new thread. The comment was "It sounds ugly to say, 
but how disabled does a person have to be before designing a website to 
accommodate them is considered unreasonable and a web designer is not legally 
responsible to accommodate them? Blind? Deaf? Limbless? What if they are 
mentally retarded?". 

Blind 

The question should really be 'vision impaired' and the website should be able 
to support users with vision impairments. But for this blog I will stick to 
people who are registered blind and use a screen reader to help them interact 
with the website. 

The person cannot see images or video and there is no way that either can be 
fully described, however it is perfectly possible for the site to enable the 
user to: 

Ignore eye-candy. 
Be given a brief description of an image where it is conveys important 
information. 
Provide an audio-description of a video if the sound track is insufficient. 
Now let me give an example of a web site that is unacceptable. I recently 
booked theatre tickets for a show that includes an audio-description. It would 
therefore seem reasonable for a person with a vision impairment to book tickets 
as well. In fact, the site worked very well enabling a screen-reader user to 
find the show and the date, choose the seats and start the booking process, 
including name, address and credit card details. Unfortunately it fell down at 
the very last hurdle. For some reason the web designer had decided that the 
'submit' button should be an image that could only be reached by a mouse click 
(a user who is blind could not see the button nor move the mouse to hover over 
it). So having done all the hard work the blind user could not submit the 
ticket request. The site is not only inaccessible but profoundly irritating. 

Deaf

Until recently most websites were accessible to the deaf community. The written 
word and images are accessible. With the increased use of audio, sites are 
becoming less accessible. Site owners need to think about the use of audio: 

Some of it is just ear candy e.g. background music on an intro page and can be 
ignored. 
Some of it is nice to have, e.g. a welcome from the CEO, but does not contain 
any information, at least nothing that is not written elsewhere, a pointer to 
the written equivalent is all that is needed. 
Some of it is important, e.g. The text that goes with a presentation, and in 
this case sub-titles (known as captioning in the web world) are required. 
Having said that text is accessible it must be remembered that for many people 
who are deaf sign language is the preferred means of communication. A site that 
wants to attract and be friendly to this community may wish to consider adding 
a signing avatar, examples of which are now available. 

Limbless

A better description would be people with muscular skeletal disorders. 
Depending on the specific disability the input devices include special variants 
of a mouse, on-screen keyboards, single switches, text prediction, voice 
activation etc. The design of the pages should allow interaction: 

Without a mouse. 
With the minimum number of keystrokes (on screen keyboards can take longer to 
use than a standard keyboard) . 
Enable voice activation of controls and form input. 
To better understand the importance of this consider a person who has been 
leading an active life and using computing and the web as a regular part of 
their business and private life. Now consider the same person after a spinal 
injury that means they now have no use of their limbs. They should be able to 
carry on doing everything that could do before on the computer-some of it may 
take longer and require more effort and concentration but nothing should be 
inaccessible. 

Mentally retarded

This is a particularly non-PC term for people with cognitive disabilities. I 
was recently discussing this area and was introduced to the term 'spikey 
cognitive abilities' to express the idea that people have different levels of 
cognitive ability: reasoning, spatial awareness, memory etc. 

Not all content on a site will be accessible to all users; for example a web 
site devoted to quantum mechanics does not need to be accessible to someone 
with a reading age of eight. However, the language, layout and navigation of a 
site should be as clear as possible to make it accessible to anyone who has an 
interest in the content and functionality of the site. 

Multiple disabilities

The comment did not include the issue of people with multiple disabilities. 
Even here there are people able to use accessible web sites including 
blind-quadriplegics (using voice input and output) and deaf-blind users using a 
keyboard and Braille output. 

So, in conclusion, I go back to my original answer 'Yes, ja, oui, igen' which 
brings up the further issue of internationalisation but that is a topic for 
another day. 


http://www.it-director.com/blogs/Abrahams_Accessibility/2007/10/Accessible_to_whom_.html
BlindNews Mailing List
Subscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" as subject

Unsubscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" as subject

Moderator: BlindNews-Moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Archive: http://GeoffAndWen.com/blind

RSS: http://GeoffAndWen.com/BlindNewsRSS.asp

More information about RSS feeds will be published shortly.

Other related posts:

  • » Accessible to whom?