[nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility

Tue Mar 4 14:50:56 UTC 2014

The first thing than any web developer needs to know is that a lot of 
very smart people have spent a lot of time and effort creating 
documentation on how to write accessible web apps. For more information 
on this, see the web site of the Web Access Initiative, 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/.

Also, the Federal government developed it's own guidelines for web 
accessibility so that  developers working for the Federal government 
could provide apps that acheived at least a certain level of 
accessibility.  I have to admit here that I haven't read those standards 
for about 15 years and i have no idea how up to date they are.

You don't need a license or anything to be a web developer so many, 
perhaps most, developers have never heard of the W3C  much less WAI. But 
I was first introduced to the WAI back in the late 90s. It's been around 
for a long time. One of the major criticisms of the WAI has always been 
that it's recommendations are too long, too technical, and too difficult 
to understand. Well, I don't know. I guess I'd consider that a valid 
criticism. I feel it's a bit of a cop out but I can understand it. On 
the other hand,  there are also many free and open source tools for 
testing web accessibility. The problem is more one of selecting a tool 
rather than finding a tool.  The University of Wisconsin just did an 
extensive study of these tools. I'm not entirely sure the results are 
meant for the general public but I'll check into whether i can post 
their findings here.

So there is no reason for us to create our own accessibility guidelines. 
  It's being done by people who get paid to do just that. And there is 
no reason for us to figure out how to test accessibility. There are 
many, many tools out there to do it already. There are plenty of 
commercial packages as well. And there are plenty of consultatnts as well.

I guess I can agree that most developers don't make their web sites 
inaccessible on purpose. On the other hand, I think it's all too common 
for a developer to choose to learn about accessibility tomorrow. I was 
once part of the team that enforced accessibility standards at the 
University of Wisconsin. Often, when i informed a developer that his 
site wasn't up to the University's accessibility standards, I was  met 
with anger. "Why didn't  somebody tell me about this before?" But if the 
guy (and it was always a guy) was being a real SOB, I'd almost always be 
able to point out to him that he'd heard about these standards and had, 
at some point, made a deliberate choice to postpone learning about them. 
  It's human nature.

But again, it's like security issues. Developers simply have to pay 
attention to these issues or they are not doing their jobs. It's part of 
every developers job whether they are willing to accept it or not.

On 03/03/14 22:38, Nicole Torcolini wrote:
> This email is in response to some of the threads that have been going on
> over the last two or three days. I have separated it out, though, because I
> hope that people will read it in it's own light instead of in the direct
> shadow of some of the other messages.
> This message might get a little lengthy, and I might have to finish it
> another time. The following are my opinions, which are based off of my
> experiences. Feel free to dispute them, but I ask that you please do it in a
> polite manner. So, here goes...
> Oh, and one other thing. All of this is in reference to web accessibility,
> since that is the area with which I am most accessible.
>
> It may be hard to define accessibility, but I think that it is possible to
> have at least some sort of definition. To start, accessibility means that it
> can be used with a screen reader. Okay, so what does "can be used with a
> screen reader" mean? This might not be all of it, but, as a start for
> defining  guide lines for developers, it is better than nothing:
> 1. Everything that can be achieved with the mouse can be achieved with only
> the keyboard
> 2. Focus is handled correctly
> 3. ARIA roles and attributes are used and maintained correctly
> 4. HTML elements are used correctly
> This might not seem like a lot, but these four areas have a lot of content.
> For example, JMHO, number 3 covers issues like notifying the screen reader
> when an area of the web page changes using aria-live. Number 4 could include
> things like using headings when appropriate and not using tables purely for
> layout purposes with stuff that is not data.
>
> I don't think that developers deliberately decide to make their websites
> inaccessible. A lot of developers don't know how to make their websites
> accessible. Not everyone knows about ARIA, and, even if they do, there is
> not a good way to verify that all of the ARIA stuff is correct without using
> a screen reader. Even if a screen reader is used to test a website, most
> sighted developers don't have the screen reader proficiency that we do, and,
> even if they do, they might only have access to certain screen readers, so
> there is no way to verify that it works with all screen readers. I can't
> tell you how often I test something with screen reader x, and the developer
> says "I don't understand. I tried it with y or z, and it worked." Usually,
> once I explain, they understand, but it is extremely frustrating for them
> when they put in the time and effort to test, but find out that it does not
> work with a certain screen reader. To that end, some of the accessibility
> problems are because screen readers act different and implement the ARIA
> spec differently. I'm not suggesting that all screen readers should be the
> same, but there are certain things that would make things easier if the were
> consistent across screen readers. I also often run into the case where the
> developer has tried, having good intensions, but has misunderstood what
> certain ARIA attributes do. JMHO, the ARIA spec needs to give more
> information.
> Accessibility might not be the absolute first thing on the list when a
> product is created, but it needs to be on there fairly early, long before
> dogfood or even fish food. Accessibility is not something that can be added
> later. The analogy that I like to use is adding ramps and elevators to a
> building after it is built. It just does not work, or not that well. Even
> though accessibility may not affect that many people, it needs to be treated
> the same way that security is treated; it needs to be a "launch blocker".
> Okay, so maybe it is not realistic to expect a product to be absolutely
> perfect in terms of accessibility before it sees the light of day. Then how
> do you determine what is enough? You make levels of accessibility, starting
> simply with item number one on the list above. No, it's often not enough for
> good screen reader support, and it usually keeps people from coding
> themselves into a corner. There could be different levels of accessibility.
> If a product is large, then different levels could be assigned to different
> parts of the product based on how often that part is used.
> In order for a product to be accessible, it sometimes takes the entire
> company being committed to accessibility. Sometimes, developers want to make
> the product accessibility, but they think or have been told to focus their
> efforts in other areas. So, often, the best approach is a top down approach.
> If someone high enough in the chain can be convinced that accessibility is
> important, then he/she will tell the people whom they manage to work more on
> accessibility.
> Unfortunately, there is no quick and dirty guide to making a website
> accessibility. If you want to make it really accessible the rather easy way,
> then just use native HTML, but, in today's world, that just does not scale.
> Developers need to understand ARIA roles and attributes, keyboard handling,
> and focus handling. They also need to understand what screen readers cannot
> do, such as detect most CSS or recognize images.
> Finally, yes, often, the best way to test a product for accessibility is to
> have users with disabilities try it. If a company is large enough, there may
> be a fair number of employees with disabilities. Also, there are sometimes
> employees who do not have disabilities but who work on accessibility who
> know how to use assistive technology, but these are probably not as
> prevalent in smaller companies.
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

-- 
---
John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu