Skip to main content

Home/ Web Accessibility/ Group items tagged web

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Vernon Fowler

A comparison of common web accessibility problems - Web Accessibility - 0 views

desarrolloweb.dlsi.ua.es/...mon-web-accessibility-problems

accessibility web

shared by Vernon Fowler on 15 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Vernon Fowler on 15 Apr 14
     
    "An accessible web site is one which can be used by all its intended visitors, taking into account their differing capabilities. Inaccessible web sites can pose significant barriers to people with disabilities. The challenge of developing web content accessible by everyone has motivated the evolvement of a number of techniques to address web accessibility issues. Unfortunately, web developers often lack sufficient knowledge about these guidelines and techniques to develop accessible web sites. This paper presents a survey of common web accessibility problems. Different studies and reports have been analyzed in order to summarize the most common web accessibility problems. "
Sandra Earl

Digital Web Magazine - Understanding Disabilities when Designing a Website - 0 views

www.digital-web.com/...ities_when_designing_a_website

accessibility design standards general development FUSION09

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • In the UK In the US 2m people have a vision impairment3 10m people have a vision impairment4 8.2m people have mild to moderate deafness5, 688,000 people have severe to profound deafness6 28m people have a hearing impairment7 3.4m people have a physical disability8 8m people have a physical disability9 1.5m people have a learning disability10 6.8m people have a learning disability11 6m people have dyslexia12 25m people have dyslexia13
  • Most people who are blind will rely on screen reading software such as
  • JAWS or Windows-Eyes
  • ...41 more annotations...
  • refreshable Braille device which converts the text on the website into Braille.
  • Place form instructions before the form field
  • To improve accessibility and usability for screen reader users, form field requirements must be placed before the form field itself.
  • Provide a ‘skip to main content’ link Screen reader users benefit from a ‘skip to main content’ link as it enables them to jump over lengthy navigation to the main content of the web page, reducing the amount of content they have to listen to.
  • Ensure link text is descriptive Screen reader users using software such as JAWS can listen to the links on a web page through functionality known as a links list. If link text is not descriptive—solely using phrases such as “click here” or “more information”, for example—there is no way for screen reader users to determine where the link will take them.
  • Provide descriptive web page titles The first piece of information a screen reader user will listen to when they open a web page is the <title> assigned to the page. It is important, therefore, to use a title which reflects the content of the web page.
  • Provide descriptive headings It is important to provide descriptive headings
  • Screen reader users often listen to headings out of context from the main content
  • Provide audio descriptions and transcripts of video content Screen reader users depend on audio descriptions to provide additional information about important visual content displayed within a video.
  • Transcripts are written accounts of the video or audio content and can include additional information such as comments and descriptions
  • screen reader users cannot use a mouse
  • People with low vision will tend to use magnification software to make reading a website easier. Depending on the severity of their vision impairment, these users may combine magnification and screen reading software by using software products such as Supernova or ZoomText. For milder vision impairments, users may just increase the default size of text within their browser settings or change the colors to make the content more comfortable to read.
  • Avoid using images of text
  • Ensure text can be resized
  • Place key information in specific locations of the screen
  • ebsite search functionality is often located in the top-right corner of the web page
  • Juicy Studio color contrast analyzer.
  • it is possible to determine whether the colors chosen meet the minimum requirements specified in the WCAG Guidelines.
  • People with a hearing impairment tend not to use assistive software to improve their web browsing experience. Instead, they rely on the website being accessible by providing any audio content in alternative formats, such as captioning or transcripts.
  • By making audio content accessible for users with a hearing impairment, it also makes the content accessible for other users who find themselves in an environment where audio cannot be heard.
  • library with the sound turned down; they may be in a noisy environment where it is difficult to hear the audio; or they may be using a computer without speakers.
  • Provide captions for any video content
  • Provide transcripts of the spoken audio Where content is spoken without video, such as in a podcast, it is important to provide a transcript. It is recommended that the transcript be provided in plain accessible HTML to allow access by the widest possible audience, as opposed to a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF document.
  • Physical disabilities range in severity from those who are temporarily disabled, for example having a broken arm, to those who are quadriplegic and have no use of any limbs. Depending on the severity of the physical disability, these users may access websites through voice recognition software such as Dragon Naturally Speaking.
  • However, what all users with a physical disability have in common is limited or no ability to use a mouse. This means that content within the website that requires a mouse click or fine motor control cannot be accessed by these users.
  • Ensure all content can be accessed via the keyboard
  • Users with a physical disability will have limited or no ability to use a mouse and as such will navigate websites using the keyboard.
  • Provide a focus state for links
  • Provide visible skip links Skip links are links that become visible when they receive focus, and are helpful for users with a physical disability. Keyboard users must tab through the web page to reach the particular link they are interested in—skip links allow lengthy navigation to be bypassed and reduce the number of key presses required to activate links in the main content.
  • Avoid moving targets Avoid using moving targets such as tickers, as users with a physical disability can find them very difficult to use.
  • Provide large clickable areas
  • provide sufficient whitespace between links
  • People with a cognitive or learning disability may have difficulties with memory, problem solving, perception, and conceptualization. In addition, people with a learning disability may have issues with reading and comprehension such as dyslexia.
  • To enhance the usability of the website for these users it is important that content is written in plain English, page layouts are simple in design, navigation is clear and consistent and there is no moving content to impede comprehension.
  • Provide the same look and feel throughout all pages of the website. Ensure that the navigation and main content are located in the same area of every page. Additionally, consider color coding different sections within the website. Users with cognitive or learning disabilities tend to find it easier to navigate around sections which are color coded.
  • Provide a site map A site map will enable users with a cognitive or learning disability to have a clear idea of the breadth of content contained within the website. The site map also enables users to directly access any page on the website, and helps if the user becomes lost.
  • Use a resizable sans-serif font which is left-aligned To increase readability for users with a cognitive or learning disability, use a sans-serif font which can be resized. Additionally, left-align content—justified text is more difficult to read due to the uneven spacing between words. Italicized and capitalized text should also be kept to a minimum to aid readability.
  • Provide helpful error messages
  • Offer speech output Organizations such as Browse Aloud and Textic enable content from a website to be spoken when highlighting the words on a web page. Offering this functionality is especially helpful for users who find it difficult to read large amounts of text.
  • Provide an Easy Read Version Consider providing an ‘easy read’ version of complex content. This combines plain text with images to aid understanding of the information. For an example of an easy read document see the Department of Health’s Making Lives Better for People with a Learning Disability.
  • Provide different color schemes People with cognitive or learning disabilities may benefit from different color scheme options. It is helpful if an easy read scheme such as a lemon background with dark text, and a hi-viz scheme such as a black background with yellow text, are provided.
Sandra Earl

WebAIM: Accessibility of AJAX Applications - Accessibility Issues - 0 views

webaim.org/ajax

accessibility AJAX ARIA WebAIM

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • AJAX is
  • a smorgasbord of web technologies put together to allow dynamic client-server interactions to occur in web applications without requiring pages to reload or refresh.
  • AJAX uses the following:
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • The XHTML and CSS elements can be dynamically modified to display new information or styling. These changes are typically done using the Document Object Model.
  • XHTML (or HTML) and CSS to create an interface and visually style information.
  • JavaScript is used to manipulate the interface elements and is also used to establish a communication with a web server through XMLHttpRequest. This allows data (typically in XML format) to be transmitted between the client and the web server without requiring page reloads or refreshes.
  • standard type of client-server interaction
  • A web page interface is presented. User information is collected (via forms, links, etc.). The user submits information (submits form, activates link, etc.). The server processes submitted information. A new web page interface is sent to the user.
  • With AJAX, all of these steps can be handled in one interface.
  • The types of web applications and interactions allowed by using AJAX has given rise to the term "Web 2.0"
  • AJAX allows feature-rich, dynamic web applications which use server-side processing without requiring the traditional "submit data — retrieve web page"
  • allows more streamlined applications that require less processing and data transmission
  • higher levels of interactivity
  • current solution to these problems is to either provide a non-AJAX alternative to your application or to allow your AJAX application to continue to function if JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are not supported. Such a requirement may be very difficult to achieve
  • Another issue with AJAX is how the application interface is updated. When updates to the interface occur, it may not be visually apparent that a change has occurred. The problem is even more troublesome for screen reader users. Screen readers typically read in a linear fashion. When changes happen in the interface, the screen reader user may not be aware of the change and the new content will likely not be read.
  • to allow dynamic interface changes to be accessible, the application must alert the user that a change has occurred, allow direct access to the new content, and then allow continued functionality of the web application. This process, while difficult to achieve, especially for screen reader users, is possible to achieve in many AJAX applications.
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.
Vernon Fowler

WAVE Help - 0 views

wave.webaim.org/help

wave tools accessibility testing bookmarklet toolbar headings structure forms

shared by Vernon Fowler on 04 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Vernon Fowler on 04 Mar 14
     
    "WAVE is tool to help web developers make their web content more accessible. WAVE cannot tell you if your web content is accessible. Only a human can determine true accessibility. But, WAVE can help you evaluate the accessibility of your web content."
Sandra Earl

untitled - 0 views

www.iheni.com/e-shifts-on-desktop-and-mobile

mobile accessibility reading best practices standards

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • The upsurge in VoiceOver could be explained in part by iPhone now providing VoiceOver support; all of a sudden there is a very real reason to switch to Mac if you can use a screen reader you are familiar with on both your desktop and mobile.
  • The upsurge in VoiceOver could be explained in part by iPhone now providing VoiceOver support; all of a sudden there is a very real reason to switch to Mac if you can use a screen reader you are familiar with on both your desktop and mobile.
  • It’s good to also see the free, open source NVDA on the up. They’ve worked hard to include WAI-ARIA support and are becoming a key tool for web developers when testing.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • We’re still faced with one massive problem with mobile access however and that’s the lack of an open, cross platform accessibility API that mobile screen readers can hook into. On desktop we have IAccessible2, MSAA and UI Automation (amongst others) but on mobile users are tied into one platform often only supporting one browser (such as iPhone, Blackberry RIM and others) so while desktop has opened up we find ourselves in a 1990’s type impasse with users left with little room to choose on mobile. Opera works well with VoiceOver but we have no way of telling if it works on the iPhone as it’s not supported. My hope is that with more users there’ll be more momentum behind breaking this stand off and opening up the market and ultimately giving users not only choice but portability between platforms.
  • It’s good to also see the free, open source NVDA on the up. They’ve worked hard to include WAI-ARIA support and are becoming a key tool for web developers when testing.
  • « Yay factor! Going global with standards and BBC Click on web accessibility Make video accessible, localised, mobile and searchable by captioning » Screen reader software usage shifts on desktop and mobile Nov 4th, 2009 by iheni WebAim released their 2009 Screen Reader Survey last week, a follow up from last years Screen Reader survey. Very good reading it makes too but of particular interest are results around screen reader choice on the desktop and increased screen reader access on mobile. For years it’s felt like screen reader users have mainly used IE on the desktop in combination with the major screen readers Jaws by Freedom Scientific and WindowEyes by GW Micro. It’s not that other platforms don’t support screen readers (we have Orca on Linux, VoiceOver on Mac) it’s just that IE seems to have dominated. As such what types of content and web technologies users can and can’t access has very much been driven by what the three software vendors Microsoft, Freedom Scientific and GW Micro have supported. This has made access to the open web a bit lopsided cutting down on choice for the end user, competition and by extension innovation. SVG is an example of a web technology that has possibly suffered by not being supported by IE and in turn by Jaws and WindowEyes. What’s interesting to see in this year’s survey is that Jaws and WindowEyes – while still the most used – have some stiff competition at snapping at their heels from open source, free screen readers (NVDA and  SAToGo ) and VoiceOver which is available with Mac: JAWS 75.2% Window Eyes 23.5% VoiceOver 14.6% System Access or System Access To Go 22.3% NVDA 25.6% While this year’s stats show little shift for Jaws and WindowEyes usage overall there is a significant leap forward for NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access) and VoiceOver: 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. The upsurge in VoiceOver could be explained in part by iPhone now providing VoiceOver support; all of a sudden there is a very real reason to switch to Mac if you can use a screen reader you are familiar with on both your desktop and mobile. This could also explain the increase of screen reader users on mobile reported this year with 53% of survey respondents with disabilities confirming they use a screen reader on a mobile device. This is up from 12% last year (although last year’s survey doesn’t distinguish disabled from non-disabled users). I wonder how much this is to do with the ‘iPhone Factor’ but also can’t help thinking that social networking has done for the mobile web what Kylie Minogue did for Agent Provocateur – everybody wants some. And for me at least 2009 feels like the year that we all sat up and paid attention to the potential of mobile for people with disabilities. We’re still faced with one massive problem with mobile access however and that’s the lack of an open, cross platform accessibility API that mobile screen readers can hook into. On desktop we have IAccessible2, MSAA and UI Automation (amongst others) but on mobile users are tied into one platform often only supporting one browser (such as iPhone, Blackberry RIM and others) so while desktop has opened up we find ourselves in a 1990’s type impasse with users left with little room to choose on mobile. Opera works well with VoiceOver but we have no way of telling if it works on the iPhone as it’s not supported. My hope is that with more users there’ll be more momentum behind breaking this stand off and opening up the market and ultimately giving users not only choice but portability between platforms.
  • We’re still faced with one massive problem with mobile access however and that’s the lack of an open, cross platform accessibility API that mobile screen readers can hook into.
  • Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10
     
    "We're still faced with one massive problem with mobile access however and that's the lack of an open, cross platform accessibility API that mobile screen readers can hook into."
Sandra Earl

Web 2.0: Understanding Web Accessibility - 0 views

infosysblogs.com/...standing_web_accessibilit.html

accessibility general FUSION09

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • As stated by renowned accessibility expert Shawn Lawton Hewitt, Web Accessibility simply means that people with disabilities can use the Web.  More specifically, Web Accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate and interact with the Web.
  • It is important to understand one aspect that most experts agree on – an individual web site can never be perfectly accessible to everybody. This has to do with the sheer diversity of disabilities as well as the potential overlap of multiple disabilities. But a systematic approach like implementing the WCAG guidelines can go long way in accommodating a very large number of people.
Vernon Fowler

HTML_CodeSniffer - 0 views

squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer

accessibility bookmarklet tools html WCAG wcag2

shared by Vernon Fowler on 16 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Vernon Fowler on 16 Feb 14
     
    HTML_CodeSniffer is a client-side script that checks HTML source code and detects violations of a defined coding standard. HTML_CodeSniffer is written entirely in JavaScript, does not require any server-side processing and can be extended by developers to enforce custom coding standards by creating your own "sniffs". To get you started, HTML_CodeSniffer comes with standards that enforce the three conformance levels of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, and the web-related components of the U.S. "Section 508" legislation. An auditor interface is provided by a bookmarklet to let you try out these accessibility checks on any web page.
Vernon Fowler

WCAG 2.1 is Coming-and Here's What You Should Know Right Now - Siteimprove - 0 views

siteimprove.com/...what-you-should-know-right-now

forms usability buttons inclusivedesign errors navigation accessibility mobile touch

shared by Vernon Fowler on 09 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • Expect the new WCAG standards to emphasize a mobile experience that matches what users might expect from a traditional browsing session. This will likely include making your site’s touch screen functions more compatible with assistive technology. 
  • The new standards are expected to raise that level to 400% to help users with low vision navigate sites more smoothly.
  • WCAG 2.1 will likely seek to place limits on where and when pop-ups and similar advertising can appear. 
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • For users with motor skill issues, clicking on incorrect links and buttons is a common problem. WCAG 2.1 will likely require improvements in navigation technology that makes it easier both to find the right link and to correct actions if the wrong link is clicked. 
  • Vernon Fowler on 09 Apr 18
     
    Considering how massively the online landscape has changed in the past decade, it's amazing that international standards for web accessibility haven't been updated since December of 2008. That's about to change. After soliciting and assessing recommendations from the public, the international Web Accessibility Initiative is set to announce version 2.1 of its Web Content Accessibility Guidelines in the middle of this year. As that update draws nearer, there are a few key changes website owners may want to start planning for. (Keep in mind that all WCAG 2.1 changes are tentative.)
Vernon Fowler

WAT-C Web Accessibility Tools Consortium - 0 views

wat-c.org/index.html

accessibility webdesign tools development

shared by Vernon Fowler on 23 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Vernon Fowler on 23 Feb 14
     
    "The Web Accessibility Tools Consortium [WAT-C] provides a collection of free tools to assist both developers and designers in the development and testing of accessible web content. The consortium is a collaboration of some of the world's leading accessibility practitioners, founded by Accessible Information Solutions (Australia), Infoaxia (Japan), The Paciello Group (USA), Wrong HTML (Japan), and Juicy Studio (UK). Our goals are to develop new tools, improve current tools and expand the range of browsers, operating systems and languages in which our tools are available."
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.
Vernon Fowler

Introduction to Web Accessibility - Course - 0 views

webaccessibility.withgoogle.com/course

accessibility google course web learning

shared by Vernon Fowler on 26 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Vernon Fowler on 26 Feb 14
     
    "Introduction to Web Accessibility is an online course that introduces tools and techniques for web developers to easily ensure that websites are more accessible to users who are blind or have low vision."
Vernon Fowler

WebAIM: Alternative Text - 0 views

webaim.org/alttext

accessibility resources alt text images logos figure markup html

shared by Vernon Fowler on 27 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Alternative text should not: be redundant (be the same as adjacent or body text). use the phrases "image of…" or "graphic of…".
  • Identifying the logo as actually being a logo (alt="Acme Company Logo") is not typically necessary.
  • If the fact that an image is a photograph or illustration, etc. is important content, it may be useful to include this in alternative text.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Decorative images do not present important content, are used for layout or non-informative purposes, and do not appear within a link. In almost all cases, spacer and decorative images should have null alt text (alt="").
  • In current practice on the web, many such images are given descriptive alternative text even though the images don't seem to provide useful content. Option C (alt="") would probably be most appropriate in this case because the image does not convey relevant or important content.
  • Alternative text should: presents the CONTENT and FUNCTION of the image. be succinct.
  • Decorative images still need an alt attribute, but it should be null (alt="").
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.
Sandra Earl

Tim Anderson's ITWriting - Tech writing blog » Adobe AIR: 10 reasons to love ... - 0 views

www.itwriting.com/...-it-10-reasons-to-hate-it.html

accessibility adobe air online help

shared by Sandra Earl on 12 Oct 10 - Cached
  • 3. Easy conversion of existing Flex or HTML applications. It’s the same basic runtime. In the case of HTML, AIR apps rely on WebKit, the core component in Apple’s Safari web browser.
  • 7. Rich design and multimedia. This is Flash, so ideal for highly customized UIs, animation, sound and video. Adobe is proving the point by creating a media player built with AIR. Existing Flash developers can easily use their skills to build AIR applications.
  • 4. Proprietary technology. AIR applications depend on Adobe’s runtime.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • 6. No model for commercial components. It is not clear to me how a component vendor could sell an AIR component while protecting it from unlicensed deployment. This may limit the availability of 3rd party components, with a corresponding impact on productivity.
  • 7. Schizophrenic development model. AIR supports either Flex development, or HTML applications which run in WebKit. The ugly side of this flexibility is that there are two SDKs, even two JavaScript virtual machines with different capabilities and characteristics. While it is nice to have a way to render HTML, I am not convinced that the web application model is worth it, given the complications it causes. After all, web applications run perfectly well in the browser.
  • Lack of UI standards may lead to annoying inconsistencies between AIR applications. We are used to this on the Web; now it is coming to the desktop as well.
1 - 20 of 154 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page