Skip to main content

Home/ Web Accessibility/ Group items tagged phone

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Sandra Earl

Designing and Developing mobile web sites in the real world, part 2 - Opera Developer C... - 0 views

dev.opera.com/...d-developing-mobile-web-site-1

accessibility mobile opera best practices reading

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • In tandem with the launch of their 3G mobile website, Siminn also launched a slightly lighter version of the same site - a 2G-optimized mobile presence to serve less powerful phones. Both sites are anchored to the same reservoir of information, but the 3G site makes less-restricted use of CSS, images, and other coding ornamentations.
  • The only distinction Siminn makes concerning the dimensionality of the user-experience is whether the device is 2G or 3G enabled. As stated before, 2G devices are sent to a slightly lighter version of the 3G site
  • This is exactly what Siminn are doing. By detecting the type of phone, they are presenting the customer with the most appropriate version of the page – either the 3G enhanced or the more basic design.
  • ...19 more annotations...
  • e chose not to try and replicate the entire Icelandair website, but rather to cleave from it four or five of its most crucial elements.
  • This page contains the only form on the mobile site. In general, forms should be avoided because form input via a mobile device can be a tricky endeavor. However, there are certain coding practices that can simplify form input. For example, if your form field should only accept numeric input, then you should make use of the -wap-input-format property of WAP CSS. The Apple iPhone will automatically set the input to numeric if the name of the input element is set to certain values - phone or zip for example.
  • Mobile users only need to be shown news items that have some inherent urgency.
  • Much like your desktop browser recognizes a mailto: link as an email address, mobile devices recognize tel: links and phone numbers.
  • Do not assume that just because the UA string is not in your enumerated list of “Accepted strings”, it is not possible to view the site.
  • This is where you build in progressive enhancements to the website experience.
  • WURFL is an open source list of known phones and their capabilities. This can be put into a database and when a mobile device visits the your site you can sniff the UA, look-up the capabilities of that device (including screen-dimensions, default browser, etc) and serve them the best possible experience.
  • The RDF vocabulary is a standard across many mobile devices. Vendors that use this approach allow mobile sites to keep up-to-date with any new devices, without having to keep their own database of device types.
  • ou can find more details about standards support in Opera Mini/Mobile 4 here: Designing with Opera Mini 4 in mind JavaScript support in Opera Mini 4
  • There are a few basic coding items to avoid in the mobile web space. Chief among these, at least for now (now being 10/2007), is client-side scripting.
  • While it's tempting to try and port that elegant bit of AJAX from your conventional web to your mobile web, you will only create headaches for yourself.
  • ome browsers do support various levels of JavaScript, but as a developer you should not expect it to work across all devices.
  • retty heavy processor hog, so continuous scripting can drain a battery fast
  • mobile browser support for stylesheets varies greatly.
  • keep things simple.
  • most mobile devices default to their own font sizes and families regardless of styling. Thus, when working on the Siminn project we made no attempt to influence font size or family. In cases where we wanted a larger font, we simply relied on the generic XHTML heading elements.
  • he inclusion of font-size=smaller in the body tag worked as a kind of global reset for font sizes in every device we tested. With this little bit of code we were able to sufficiently reduce the default font size and thus more faithfully reproduce the design that we had been tasked with coding.
  • XHTML-MP - the mobile web subset of XHTML - is fully supported on most modern devices.
  • You can't read 2 books and several articles about mobile web development and cover everything. Much of the effort is trial and error. When starting out, emulators are a good way to get a rough idea of how the site will work. It gives you some feel for the navigation, architecture and flow of the site, but the look and feel varies from the emulator to the real device. The best thing you can do is get a few real phones to test on. I'm sure between yourself, co-workers and a few friends, you can manage to test your site on a good cross-section of the phones out there. Finally, there is some help. The W3C mobile web initiative does have a checklist to see how well your site is doing and so does dev.mobi - if you take heed of these two lists, your site should give a quality experience to most customers.
Sandra Earl

E-Access Blog » Blog Archive » Organisation in the Spotlight - W3C: Global St... - 0 views

www.headstar.com/eablive

accessibility elderly general WCAG 2.0

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • One major new piece of work undertaken by WAI is the EC-funded WAI-AGE Project (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/), a look at the implications of an ageing population for web access, given the older people are more likely to have disabilities and may also be less familiar with new technologies. “Demographics worldwide are dramatically changing at the moment,” says Andrew Arch, who works with Abou-Zahra on WAI-AGE. “The proportions of older to younger people are changing as well as the numbers. We’re living longer, and we haven’t got the support behind us. “Lots of things have got to change in governments and organisations - with an ageing workforce, you have to keep learning to stay accessible.”
  • The WAI-AGE project is partly aimed at finding out whether there are any significant new pieces of work needed to ensure web accessibility for an older population, Arch says. “We’ve looked at what research and user observation has gone on over the decade. There is a pretty big overlap between older people and others with disabilities - sight starts to decline, motor dexterity - and individually these overlap. But with older people there is often a lack of recognition that there is a disability there. For example some people might just say they can’t remember so well, rather than that they have a cognitive impairment. Or people won’t see failing eye-sight as a disability, it’s just ‘part of growing old’. But they are disabilities, and often multiple disabilities.”
  • Having gained a grasp of current research the project returned to guidelines such as WCAG 2.0 to see if any changes might be needed. “A large proportion of the needs of older people are met by the new guidelines, but other things might need to feed into the guidance we will issue on implementing the guidelines, for example guidance on how people prepare content for older people.,” said Arch. “Many older people have not grown up with computers, and may not realise their capabilities, for example that you can magnify text in your browser.”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • This argument is a development of the age-old mantra from the accessibility sector that people with disabilities want to use the web in the same way as everybody else - “it is a human right recognised by the UN,” says Abou-Zahra. But he recognizes that businesses in particular will also  be interested in the additional business benefits, especially in the current financial climate.
  • “With commercial organisations the return on investment is often an important argument. Well, a few years ago, companies might have said ‘how many older people are online?’ but with demographics changing they know the answer. And with the current surge in mobile phone use there is another incentive, since accessible sites work better on mobile phones.”
  • Another change of style will be a greater separation between the core guidelines and references to specific technologies such as Javascript or browser types, Abou-Zahra says.
  • “WCAG 1.0 was too  technology-specific. Back then HTML was more dominant, and there was less use of multimedia, but today we have a flurry of technologies such as Ajax, so the first lesson we learned is don’t write for a specific technology. Also, in the days of WCAG 1.0 we had to exclude Javascript because it was not sufficiently standardised and  assistive technology could not handle it consistently, but now that has largely changed so you need to include it, to look at how any technology should be accessible. The requirements - such as tagging images with text - needs to apply to any technology you are using.
Sandra Earl

E-Access Blog » Blog Archive » Call For Research Into Elderly Access To Mobil... - 1 views

www.headstar.com/eablive

accessibility phone mobile cell elderly cognitive hardware

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • “Many of the commonly-used techniques of requirements capture for mobile technologies are inappropriate for use with older people, for a variety of reasons,” it says. “These may be related to problems associated with age, cognitive complexity and motivation. The result is to restrict the potential of mobile technologies to provide support to older people.”
Felipp Crawly

Amazing Customer Service - 1 views

I would like to thank Onward Process Solutions for greatly helping me with my need for assistance in a Customer service outsourcing project. They provided me with 24/7 phone/ email answering serv...

started by Felipp Crawly on 31 Oct 12 no follow-up yet
Sandra Earl

Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web - 0 views

www.w3.org/mobile

accessibility mobile resources reading standards W3C

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • Users of mobile devices and people with disabilities experience similar barriers when interacting with Web content. For example, mobile phone users will have a hard time if a Web site's navigation requires the use of a mouse because they typically only have an alphanumeric keypad. Similarly, desktop computer users with a motor disability will have a hard time using a Web site if they can't use a mouse.
Sandra Earl

WebAIM: Screen Reader Survey Results - 0 views

webaim.org/...screenreadersurvey

accessibility vision blindness screen reader WebAIM general FUSION09

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • We received 1121 valid responses to the screen reader survey, which was conducted Dec. 2008 - Jan. 2009.
  • Skip to content22% Skip to main content28%
  • 33 respondents (2.9%) reported being both deaf and blind.
  • ...33 more annotations...
  • Please rate your computer proficiency Response% of Respondents Expert22% Advanced44% Intermediate27% Beginner8%
  • Please rate your screen reader proficiency Response% of Respondents Expert17% Advanced41% Intermediate32% Beginner9%
  • Screen Reader Usage
  • Of the 1121 respondents, 74% use JAWS, 23% use Window-Eyes, 8% use NVDA, and 6% use VoiceOver. While several other screen readers were reported, these were the most prominently reported. Individual versions of screen readers are not yet computed, but generally the majority of users are using the most up-to-date version of their screen reader.
  • How soon do you update your screen reader after a new version is released? Upgrade Window% of Respondents Immediately41% First 6 months25% 6-12 months9% 1-2 years9% 2-3 years4% 3+ years6% No response6%
  • How customized are your screen reader settings? (e.g., changed verbosity, installed scripts, etc.) Response% of Respondents A lot29% Somewhat40% Slightly21% Not at all7% No response4%
  • a lot or some customization was reported by only 27.6% of respondents with no disability versus 71.4% for those that reported blindness.
  • 78% of respondents reported using a screen reader on a desktop computer, 54% use a screen reader on a laptop, and 12% use a screen reader on a mobile phone.
  • No respondents who use screen readers for evaluation reported using a screen reader on a mobile device.
  • Which web browser(s) do you currently use with a screen reader? Browser% of Respondents IE633% IE768% IE82% Firefox39% Safari6%
  • Respondents with no disability were nearly twice as likely to list Firefox as blind respondents - 66% to 37%.
  • The percentage of Safari users is over double that of the overall population - this may be due in part to the fact that some in the Mac community actively solicited survey participation and encouraged respondents to indicate their Safari use, perhaps partially due to feeling snubbed because we didn't list them with IE and Firefox as direct choices.
  • When first accessing a new, unfamiliar home page, I'm most likely to... Response% of Respondents Read through the home page46% Navigate through or listen to the links on the page35% Use the Search to find what I'm looking for13% Look for a site map or site index3% No Response2%
  • Interestingly, the more proficient screen reader users are more likely to read through the home page and use links less often than less proficient screen reader users. This may be due to faster reading speeds for more experienced users. The home page strategies used were very similar regardless of proficiency, disability, or amount of screen reader use.
  • I use "skip to content" or "skip navigation" links... Response% of Respondents Whenever they're available22% Often16% Sometimes28% Seldom19% Never10% No Response4%
  • Some questions were of a technical nature and we understand that many participants may not have been very technically savvy. Responses may also be based upon user experiences with web content that is generally inaccessible. We cannot help but wonder if responses may have been different if screen reader interactions with web content were typically very positive.
  • I use Access keys... Response% of Respondents Whenever they're available22% Often16% Sometimes28% Seldom19% Never10%
  • I navigate by headings... Response% of Respondents Whenever they're available52% Often24%
  • 76% always or often navigating by headings when they are available.
  • I use site search functionality... Response% of Respondents Whenever it's available26% Often25% Sometimes31%
  • Find the word "Search"18% Jump to the first text/edit field on the page25%
  • Jump to the first form element in a page36%
  • Proficient screen reader users were more than twice as likely to jump directly to the form or text/edit field than less proficient users. Less proficient users were nearly three times more likely to use more manual methods (reading, tabbing, or finding) than more proficient users.
  • a majority of respondents seldom or never use site maps. There was no marked difference in the use of site maps across screen reader proficiency or disability. In general, it appears that site maps may be beneficial, but are not commonly accessed by screen reader users.
  • Text-only versions are always used by many and never used by many. As such, it is very difficult to interpret the value they have for screen reader users. More proficient screen reader users were much less likely to use text-only versions than less proficient users. This may suggest that proficient users employ sufficient techniques to render the main version acceptable to them. Or, it may suggest that proficient users do not gain value in using text-only versions, which are often less than optimal.
  • If content is identified as being "for screen reader users", how often do you use it? Response% of Respondents Whenever it's available38% Often15% Sometimes25% Seldom13%
  • A closer analysis, however, reveals that pop-up windows are reported as very difficult twice as often by less proficient screen reader users than with higher proficiency. Alternatively, more proficient users were three times more likely to indicate that pop-up windows are not at all difficult. This shows that less proficient screen reader users (which represent 41% of respondents) have more difficult experiences with pop-up windows.
  • Firefox users were much more likely to give a favorable response, perhaps a reflection of Firefox support for ARIA, etc. Evaluators and those without disabilities were nearly twice as likely to indicate that these applications are not very or not at all accessible than those that always use screen readers or have disabilities. This may suggest that these applications are actually more accessible than evaluators believe them to be, or alternatively, that screen reader users with disabilities are less knowledgeable about the true inaccessibility of these technologies.
  • 66% of evaluators preferred that the image be ignored, compared to only 28% of those that always user a screen reader. Similarly, 65% of those with no disability preferred that the image be ignored, compared to 29% of those with disabilities.
  • If a web page contains a photo of the White House, I prefer that the image be identified as... Response% of Respondents Photo of the White House80%
  • 69.4% of evaluators found them difficult compared to only 42.6% of those that always use a screen reader. Those with higher screen reader proficiency naturally found these links easier.
  • 71.5% of screen reader users reported that Flash is difficult
  • While the majority (58%) of users reported that frames are easy, those that are blind were 3 1/2 times more likely to indicate that they are easy than those with no disability. Similarly, those that always use a screen reader reported frames as easy nearly 3 times more often than evaluators. This perhaps suggests a misconception among those that do not have disabilities that frames are very inaccessible when in fact those with disabilities find them easy.
seth kutcher

Remote Computer Assistance - 1 views

My computer often experiences trouble and I could hardly find someone to fix it for me, especially when it happens during the wee hours of the morning. My friend told me about Computer Assistance O...

started by seth kutcher on 13 Oct 11 no follow-up yet
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page