[gui-talk] an I.e8 inquiry

Sat May 9 01:19:02 UTC 2009

I beg to differ with you.  We can debate how many is most, but I 
think you are overstating the negative case when you say "most web 
sites are not accessible to the blind."  Many are not, I partially 
make my living looking at sites-- but to say most are not just isn't 
true.  I have been on at least a dozen sites today, to enter my time 
for work, google, microsoft, my on-line grocery store, my 
Department's site, and more.  All of them were accessible to me.

Dave

At 07:26 PM 5/7/2009, you wrote:
>We can talk theory all we want but the reality out there is that most
>websites are not accessible.  Face it, mnost of the content in webpages is
>not accessible to the blind.  It is an intolerable situation.  There is no
>meeting of the minds between content authors and the blind and that standard
>should be the goal of all accessibility discussions.
>
>What we need is a practical standard for accessibility where the web
>designer designs for screen readers to use their pages.  This is not
>happening now and it is a disgrace.  This is not difficult to achieve, it is
>a matter of designing a webpage with accessibility in mind as you design the
>page.
>
>It is when people start creating new technologies to solve the problems of
>accessibility in the future and set lofty goals but they do not make things
>accessible in the here and now and in the case of Yahoo they just went ahead
>and updated their software without any regard to whether the blind could use
>it or not.
>
>
>
>On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM, albert griffith <
>albertgriffith at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Allen, also, the people who need the accessibility features need to be in a
> > position to take advantage of them as they're developed.  The only way to
> > do
> > that is to stay current with upgrades and updates.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> > Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
> > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:58 PM
> > To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> > Subject: [gui-talk] an I.e8 inquiry
> >
> > James Pepper wrote:
> > The big problem here is that designers cannot design webpages for
> > accessibility under the old standards, they are hardly going to be able
> > to do it for the new standards.
> >
> > First of all, developers can code to the old standards quite well, but
> > generally do not include such coding in their standard practices.  This
> > is due to many factors, including lack of priority by those who set
> > their requirements, e.g. the guy with the money, and a general lack of
> > professional and institutional inclusion of these requirements in
> > education.  Blaming developers for something that is larger than
> > individual developer won't help, and places blame inaccurately, and in
> > the end is just too simplistic.
> >
> > The new standards, while more complex, will be more used if, developer
> > tools include them as part of standard operation, and not following such
> > accessibility standards becomes an intentional choice.  For example, if
> > a developer places an image on the page, a bubble should pop up and note
> > an alternate description is required to meet WCAG standards.
> > Additionally, if ARIA interface elements are missing appropriate
> > accessibility attributes, developers should actually have to override
> > the defaults to get them saved for publication.  Finally, most Web
> > development tools do leave traces as to their use in the background
> > commented code of a page.  once a list of tools which, if used per plan,
> > produce accessible outputs is known, one can then in theory locate
> > people who go out of their way to produce inaccessible pages.  Such
> > folks should be targeted for feedback, since not only are they not
> > meeting people with disabilities needs, but they have done so
> > intentionally, not from lack of knowledge or ability, but for some other
> > reason.
> >
> > furthermore, more emphasis must be placed on getting meeting
> > accessibility requirements in to standard IT professionals minimum
> > acceptable certification processes.  It is hard to expect we'll improve
> > overall accessibility of IT products if the people who develop and
> > invent them don't understand the needs, nor the technical solutions to
> > meet those needs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gui-talk mailing list
> > gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > gui-talk:
> >
> > 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/albertgriffith%40s
> > bcglobal.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gui-talk mailing list
> > gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > gui-talk:
> >
> > 
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
> >
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for gui-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
>signature database 4061 (20090507) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>http://www.eset.com