SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87
  1. #51
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Black Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,029
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveMaxwell View Post
    From my experience (my wife is a deaf/hard of hearing teacher), those numbers could be accurate. At the very least, there are challenges (reading/writing in a spoken is a second language)
    My first wife (an audiologist) said much the same thing. The mistake people make is to assume that because their reading skills are poor, they must be stoopid. Not the case. I've seen something of that attitude in some well-meaning (?) accessibility articles: "We need to design down to those poor slobbering idiots so they can gawp at our sites too, the poor dearies." Hmph.

  2. #52
    Gre aus'm Pott gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    Pullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,895
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    ...picking which accessibility you should write code for is like picking which of your children you would like to survive an armed gunman.
    Yeah, right. This statement is quite balanced and in no way over the top.
    All things in perspective, surely.

  3. #53
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Put it like this then:

    If you had three children, each one with a different disability, which one of your children would you like to be able to access the web site you're making for them?
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  4. #54
    Gre aus'm Pott gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    Pullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,895
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    Yeah, that's a bit more logical and a down to earth.
    I am one hundred percent behind the point you're making, but feel that the high levels of emotion that this question seems to have caused are obscuring the issue somewhat.

    Talking of accessibility: is a menu which only functions if JavaScript is enabled count as inaccessible, or is this more a choice of the user (i.e. more of an availability issue)?

  5. #55
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    I am one hundred percent behind the point you're making, but feel that the high levels of emotion that this question seems to have caused are obscuring the issue somewhat.
    I think Alex deliberately used a provocative example to drive home his point. It's a well-used rhetorical tool, and doesn't necessarily mean that he equates inaccessible websites with murdering children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    Talking of accessibility: is a menu which only functions if JavaScript is enabled count as inaccessible, or is this more a choice of the user (i.e. more of an availability issue)?
    It depends. If there is an alternative way (even if it is somewhat less user-friendly) to achieve the same thing without JavaScript, then it's not inaccessible.

    But if the menu is critical for the use of the site and there is no alternative for non-JS users, then it is inaccessible.

    In some cases such a JS-only menu can be used as progressive enhancement, as a 'reward' for users who have support for the latest and greatest.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  6. #56
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    In a perverse way; it is actually ageing what we should focus our efforts more on as it's the only common practical denominator for all humankind regarding website accessibility. Unless of course you stop-ageing in which case a website will be of little personal use anyway. ;-)

  7. #57
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Talking of accessibility: is a menu which only functions if JavaScript is enabled count as inaccessible, or is this more a choice of the user (i.e. more of an availability issue)?
    My boss made the mistake of buying a brand new mobile phone that, unknown to him, did not support Javascript (though even if it did, it would mean his battery life would be severely shortened by bloated scripts running on the thing).

    His second mistake was using some analytics software which was so badly written, it requires Javascript for users to log in (never mind the server should be the ONLY one logging people in and out).

    I wouldn't call that a choice, I'd call that inaccessibility for three reasons... but, YMMV. It seems wrong when something is called a choice but is something people can't help. If I can choose to turn Javascript off, then I can choose to turn it back on. But I can't choose my skin colour or how abled my body is, and in a limited sense the same can go for software (depending on price, availability, practicality). So it seems more like a punishment. And for something like a menu, which has no need for Javascript (even if it's a dynamically created menu, that's server's job) for basic functionality, it's just plain discrimination. So the next question is, is the discrimination necessary to get something somehow to work for some people?
    My web-based mail just yesterday apparently decided that (some major upgrade they did last night). I can no longer check my mail via Lynx, which is kind of a shame because I was used to that. But, I can still do it in a graphical browser, so it's not inaccessible to me.

  8. #58
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am new to the forums, but I have several sitepoint books (both hardcopy and pdf), and have always been glad of the support offered. What I'm saying is, I'm a friend not a foe.

    My reply ~ in the UK and the US catering for all disabilities on websites is required by law. So why ask the question? Instead ask yourself these questions.
    • Do you disregard the Data Protection Laws when designing your website?
    • Do you expect your customer to specifically say he wants you to abide by the Data Proection Act?
    • Would you buy something from a site that disregards the Data Protection Act?


    IMHO, disregarding the law is simply not professional. It's your job, so do it.

    Nick

  9. #59
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,254
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nickdfg View Post
    My reply ~ in the UK and the US catering for all disabilities on websites is required by law. So why ask the question?
    <snip />
    IMHO, disregarding the law is simply not professional. It's your job, so do it.
    AFAIK, those laws only apply to the governmental sites, not to private sites. So for private companies, it's a matter of what percentage of your audience are you willing to ignore?

    And as to your last point - it is professional, but a cost/benefit factor does come into play. How many man hours will it take vs the percentage of your audience?

    Similar to the language offerings - should a site intended for a 99.9999% Chinese audience offer French, Spanish, German or English versions? Should a company spend hundreds of man hours of effort for a small handful of users a year?
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style

  10. #60
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    Talking of accessibility: is a menu which only functions if JavaScript is enabled count as inaccessible, or is this more a choice of the user (i.e. more of an availability issue)?
    ABSOFRAGGINGLUTELY. That half-assed crap should have gone the way of the dodo the moment we could start using :hover on any element.

    Mind you, legacy you do need scripting to make it work in IE6 - but even if the dropdowns on a menu do not appear, the parent element should at LEAST have a working link on it so that people can still depth-navigate the site.

    Too many people are abusing javascript just to serve static content and in the process schtupping the people who don't want that crap (half a million downloads of the FF noscript plugin can't be wrong), schtupping yourself on making it harder to maintain, and possibly even fudge packing yourself when it comes to bandwidth... See the endless bloated scripted garbage websites that blow half a megabyte on delivering 3k or less actual plaintext content.

    Accessibility is NOT just about availability - it's about choice... and a lot of people will choose NOT to let any of that bloated goof-assed garbage on their machines... and as more and more people go mobile, the "gee ain't it neat" trash like javascripted menus or worse, flash navigation might not be available to them.

    As I've said in several posts today, the "ENTIRE POINT of HTML" is to markup the content in a device and capabilities independent fashion.

    Which means if you have links or content that are NOT in your markup, or are linked in via techniques like framesets, iframes, DHTML or using AJAX to replicated frames functionality, you're missing the point of HTML and do NOT have accessibility.

  11. #61
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    ABSOFRAGGINGLUTELY. That half-assed crap should have gone the way of the dodo the moment we could start using :hover on any element.
    Yes, on the one hand, I would agree that :hover is far superior to using javascript to drive menus. The menu functionality is essentially a CSS function and you only want it to drop down and go back when CSS is active. For instance, JS based menu drivers land you with some really weird behaviors if CSS is available but JS is not (or vice versa).

    On the other hand, I think we should reiterate Tommy's point. The purpose of accessibility is not to create "least common denominator websites" where every component is fully accessible. That's a pretty harsh restriction. The goal of accessibility is to ensure that all content in the site is available.

    For example, an audio recording probably isn't accessible for the deaf, while a video probably isn't accessible for the blind, while a transcript probably isn't accessible for dyslexic visitors. However a combination of these strategies would ensure that that the INFORMATION is available to all. I think we should remember, THAT'S the goal of accessibility.

    This is one of the reasons I disagree with the requirement that video have synchronized captions. Given the technology available on the internet, I know of no way to do closed captioning which means that you have large lettered open captions on most "accessible" video. This does not take into consideration that there are alternate ways to present the same information via different media. That's a guideline that violates the spirit of the "if it's not accessible, present your content in a different way". That's a guideline that says "Sorry you have to find a way to make that video work for everyone."
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  12. #62
    Gre aus'm Pott gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    Pullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,895
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    ABSOFRAGGINGLUTELY. That half-assed crap should have gone the way of the dodo the moment we could start using :hover on any element.
    Ok, so maybe I'm missing something here, but this is from "The Right Way to Make a Dropdown Menu", which can be found here: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/...dropdown-menu/

    Pure CSS menus are an interesting proof of concept, but that’s all they are. Eric Meyer’s invention of them led the way to our re-thinking how menus should be built in the first place, but in of themselves they are not suitable for real-world production use.
    I have a couple of sites with a fair bit of content and am often thinking about the best way to organize the site navigation. It seems to me rather impossible to make all of the content which would be accessible from a dropdown menu, also accessible without it (when JavaScript is turned off).

    Thoughts?

    P.S. Should probably mention I settled for accordion style navigation, where the whole thing unfolds as soon as JavaScript is turned off, and al the links are accessible.

  13. #63
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,049
    Mentioned
    187 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The operative word in the quote is "pure".

    There is nothing wrong with having an enhanced menu for those with javascript enabled and a functional mega-list menu for those without. They might get an "ugly" version (that takes up the entire above "fold"?), but as long as it works, it's accessible.

  14. #64
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    Ok, so maybe I'm missing something here, but this is from "The Right Way to Make a Dropdown Menu", which can be found here: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/...dropdown-menu/
    Wow, that article is trash - Though that could just be a kneejerk reaction to the first bullet point For example I mouseover a element I want it to open NOW, not after some goofy delay - the same reason I turn off any and all goof assed desktop animations as when I click on a menu I want it open NOW, not five seconds from now... I move a window I want it to move NOW showing me what the window will look like, not with some goofy 'jiggle' animation... I hit minimize I want the window minimized NOW. Not to sound like a 14 year old Picard, but "NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!"

    At the same time I agree with some of it... it's like a hodge-podge of good ideas used to draw some really WIERD conclusions. Smacks slightly of someone starting with their own set of conclusions and then molded the facts to fit them.

    That and it's news to me that Meyer invented them - and I half suspect it would be news to him too -- though that would have been what, 2001ish? (and at the time undeployable real-world?). Lemme guess, is that like Edison "inventing" the light bulb?

    My real issue with the page though is it not only using javascript, but wasting 13k on it. Could be worse though, could be done in jquery where as 'easier/faster' to develop it would end up 20+K for the same functionality on top of needing a 120k library.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    I have a couple of sites with a fair bit of content and am often thinking about the best way to organize the site navigation. It seems to me rather impossible to make all of the content which would be accessible from a dropdown menu, also accessible without it (when JavaScript is turned off).
    Increasingly with large sites what I've done is forget all that nonsense exists, and just break it into categories and just use by-page by-section drilldown through the site. People get too obesessed with linking every single sub-page off the main page, and that's just a waste of time and can result in information overload. (even that article mentions that).

    When I was in the Air Force we had the term "Situational Awareness" - it referred to a pilots ability to handle the information being fed them. Information overload was a constant concern as technology provided more and more data - filtering down that data and presenting it in a useful format was always the number one concern.

    In that way, deep nested menus or even hordes of links to every page presents too many choices to the user; It's information overload. On another site a user was bragging about his CRELoaded based sites - I took one look and went "what is this trash?" as every page had over 200+ links on it; Like a user is going to be able to even make sense of that.

    Look at E-bay for a great example of reducing the problems with endless pages and sections. Their dropdown menu only lists categories and a few more popular sections from each category - AND you can navigate the ENTIRE site without javascript using standard old-fashioned drilldown.

    The biggest problem with flyout menus is nesting them too deep - you need more than one flyout, you are probably doing something wrong, bloating out each page unneccessarily, and it's going to break somewhere. Don't overcomplicate things by putting tens or even hundreds of links into a cascading menu - at that point break it up a little. Look at the examples on that page you linked to - FIVE DEEP on the flyouts? **** that and **** any site that does that. (and no, that's not the word filter, I typed those asterisks myself)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pullo View Post
    P.S. Should probably mention I settled for accordion style navigation, where the whole thing unfolds as soon as JavaScript is turned off, and al the links are accessible.
    Not a bad solution, but not a great one either. I probably would just have the categories listed on the main page, and then have a drilldown on each category. Again, linking to EVERY page on the site FROM every page on the site? Be a miracle if anyone can find anything.

    If you really feel the need to have a page with every link on it, that's what a sitemap page is for. Don't waste your time or mine putting a sitemap on every page (yes, vBull 4 developers, I'm looking at your garbage when I say that)

  15. #65
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I have a couple of sites with a fair bit of content and am often thinking about the best way to organize the site navigation. It seems to me rather impossible to make all of the content which would be accessible from a dropdown menu, also accessible without it (when JavaScript is turned off).

    Thoughts?
    Our very own YuriKolovsky actually created a pure CSS dropdown menu (using margins lawlz!), so even IE6 is taken care of. There was a bit of hassle with little things in various browsers but one could go ahead, copy the code and just use it in the real world.
    The other way is of course what (Mitt? I forget who said it) mentioned: if the main-levels can be clicked to somewhere that has regular content links to the same stuff that's in the subs, it's accessible whether the dropdown menu appears or not.
    I coded most of this site but didn't design it. The designer conveniently left links in the main body of each page so that I didn't have to worry all that much about whether the dropdowns worked or not. Making someone click 15 times to get to a link they could have gotten to directly via a dropdown is not very good, but one extra click? That's totally cool with me.

    P.S. Should probably mention I settled for accordion style navigation, where the whole thing unfolds as soon as JavaScript is turned off, and al the links are accessible.
    Amazon did this, dunno if they still do. I happily buy stuff on Amazon all the time and I don't surf with scripts on. At one time there was a vertical expansion menu and I just always saw it open, all the time. As Crusty mentioned, the trick with something as big as Amazon is, just show main categories when you do that, if the total number of links is that bad. Which is similar to having main-level anchors work and can take users to somewhere where they can choose further/deeper.

    Really, nothing wrong with having Javascript in a menu. I use Javascript in some dropdowns to increase keyboardability (showing the whole sub when any a inside is :focussed) and having a mouse-off (no, Crusty, not a mouse-on, just a mouse-off) delay for people with sh*tty mice like my husband has (you cannot click a checkbox with his mouse, it's just not controllable... great for testing palsy and motor issues on a site!).

    Although if you have the Mega style dropdowns, because they are so large and take up so much space on the page, Jakob Nielsen recommends having a hover-on delay as well, to prevent giant bits of SUBS covering up the page simply because you were trying to move the mouse up over to the login section or whatever. Like Crusty, I like my menus to appear NOW and I like the foto I clicked on to appear NOW (not after waiting a half minute for the lightbox to spin and grow and dance for me) but delays have their place in increasing usability as well. (If you were in the JSLive course, it was mentioned for the JS-tooltip exercise, a mouse-on delay to prevent annoying popups just for moving your mouse across the screen, similar to real browser tooltips.)

  16. #66
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveMaxwell View Post
    AFAIK, those laws only apply to the governmental sites, not to private sites. So for private companies, it's a matter of what percentage of your audience are you willing to ignore.
    Just to clarify within the [UK] Part III of DDA, specifically applies to "services over the internet", i.e. websites.

    The part of the DDA that states websites must be made accessible came into force on 1 October 1999 and the Code of Practice for this section of the Act was published on 27 May 2002.

    So theoretically even a private individual (non-commercial) would potentially be liable if they refused to make 'reasonable adjustments' to an inaccessible website after going through the correct legal channels, etc.





  17. #67
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agreed. :hover works just fine in FF2 & 3, O since way back, and IE 7 & 8.

    In fact, the only major browser that pure CSS drop downs don't work for is IE6 and you can target an alternate stylesheet or script for that using conditional comments.

    On my website I have several fallback stages. Modern browsers get a fully functional :hover driven menu as the first option since this is what works best. They can handle it, so I've enhanced their experience to that level of functionality.

    For IE6 users, I've included a conditional comment at the end of the page which inserts a script for IE6 and below. It runs a JS-based drop-down function that drives the menus. Not ideal, but it provides identical functionality for all IE6 users with JS on.

    For IE6 users with JS off (with CSS on), the additional links on the menus do not appear, therefore, I've created other nav areas (at the bottom of the page) where all the same links appear. This is not as convenient as the menus, but the primary links are still available on the nav bar, and the secondary menu links are available at another location on the page.

    And last but not least, for IE6 users with JS and CSS off, the CSS - which generates the menus and hides them - is never applied in the first place. They get the same experience as someone using a text-browser or related type of equipment. The navigation appears as an unordered list with nested lists that provide secondary links.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  18. #68
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I agree with Tommy 100&#37;, but Mittineague' s original question made me think of Stephen Hawking. Hawking is one of the most brilliant men alive today, but if he couldn't use a computer, we probably wouldn't know that. He was diagnosed in 1963 with ALS and is almost totally paralyzed.

    Hawking uses his very limited ability to move to write on a computer. Then a voice synthesizer adds the sound to his words.

    Hawking is a theoretical physicist. His contributions to science are phenomenal. What a shame it would be if he was unable to use a computer. What knowledge would remain hidden from our view?

    A lack of accessibility is more than a website just missing a customer. It isn't what we are making those with disabilities miss. It's what we may, and probably do miss because of our own inaction. It impedes not only the abilities of those with disabilities, but also our progress as a people.

    Stephen Hawking is a prime example of that.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  19. #69
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    In fact, the only major browser that pure CSS drop downs don't work for is IE6 and you can target an alternate stylesheet or script for that using conditional comments.
    Even IE6 can share in the fun now.

  20. #70
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Shyflower View Post
    Stephen Hawking is a prime example of that.
    He's also one bad-ass gangsta rapper :P
    http://www.playlist.com/playlist/additem/728177425

  21. #71
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    I am a HUGE fan of MC Hawking. All his shootings be drive-bys!

  22. #72
    SitePoint Zealot Dorsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Those too stupid to read and follow directions. That's got to be the highest percentage of people in the U.S. because it covers both genders, all races and religions, and includes people of all ages.

  23. #73
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    See, a lot easier than coding for the Deaf/deaf or for SL (maybe this lies more with content/copy anyway) or anything completely unpredictable like emotional instability (how do you code for that?!?). Semantic and logical coding can save your butt on so many levels.
    You can design for emotional instability actually, I've found from working with people suffering severe emotional and psychological disabilities from everything from dyslexia and anger management to schizophrenia that making your website work seamlessly (no errors), ensuring your design emotes the right kind of feel (no aggressive flashing images or intrusive components), the use of soft colors, good contrasts, and using "neutral language" (IE: None aggressive or trollish comments in content) will often reduce the anxiety and stress which cause people suffering emotional problems to suffer. Just thought I would add to this as I didn't want people to think it's not possible to design with these people in mind (I recommend people buying a book on psychology to gain a better insight into their users).

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Max View Post
    My first wife (an audiologist) said much the same thing. The mistake people make is to assume that because their reading skills are poor, they must be stoopid. Not the case. I've seen something of that attitude in some well-meaning (?) accessibility articles: "We need to design down to those poor slobbering idiots so they can gawp at our sites too, the poor dearies." Hmph.
    One of the main problems with disabilities is that people tend to reduce them to a childlike state. The point of accessibility is to make things work and function for a wide range of people with impairments, not to sacrifice everything to mollycoddle them and treat the end user like a baby. The disabled hate being talked down too, and they won't appreciate stereotypes, sweeping statements or false assumptions and dumbing down.

    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    I think Alex deliberately used a provocative example to drive home his point. It's a well-used rhetorical tool, and doesn't necessarily mean that he equates inaccessible websites with murdering children.
    Precisely, I think "picking" favourites among the disabled community is both counter productive to the cause and it's rather insulting to people involved. Emotions aside I would prefer people to be pro-active with needs rather than perceptions and checklists of restrictive issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveMaxwell View Post
    AFAIK, those laws only apply to the governmental sites, not to private sites. So for private companies, it's a matter of what percentage of your audience are you willing to ignore
    Sorry to tell you this Dave, but your totally wrong, Section 508 (which I'm assuming your hinting towards) does indeed apply just to government sites, but that doesn't mean inherently that there's no laws which speak in general about websites needing to be accessible. In the USA there's the ADA (American Disabilities Act), in the UK, Australia and Canada (and several places in Europe) there are variations of the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act), in Italy there's the Stanca Act, in Germany there's BITV... and there's others including a new EU act on the way (Stomme can post it, I can't remember the name, lol)... all of these implicitly apply to disability relating to public services (some even extent to personal websites). So yes... making a website inaccessible (especially a commercial one) is now a criminal offence.

    Quote Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder View Post
    So theoretically even a private individual (non-commercial) would potentially be liable if they refused to make 'reasonable adjustments' to an inaccessible website after going through the correct legal channels, etc.
    Even more interesting, I know someone involved in accessibility law and he told me that because the UK's DDA is so wide reaching (due to international law and how the UK legislation applies outside it's borders), if an American website owner who hosted his website on US soil refused to amend his commercial website to make it meet something close to compliance, and a UK citizen suffered as a result. The UK citizen would be entirely within their legal rights (as a disabled individual) to follow up legal action against the person in the USA for violating International law (especially with the new EU laws coming in) and they could have the person (under an extreme case) extradited to this country, charged and convicted under UK law for criminal offences against UK citizens (in regards to committing an offence against anti-discrimination laws). Sounds pretty scary I know but I've read the laws and the factors involved seem pretty fair in that they'll only hit the worst offenders in serious circumstances (and perhaps we'll weed out some accessibility damaging "web professionals" too).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorsey View Post
    Those too stupid to read and follow directions. That's got to be the highest percentage of people in the U.S. because it covers both genders, all races and religions, and includes people of all ages.
    Stupidity may be an illness (of sorts) but there's only so much you can do about it

  24. #74
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    You can design for emotional instability actually, I've found from working with people suffering severe emotional and psychological disabilities from everything from dyslexia and anger management to schizophrenia that making your website work seamlessly (no errors), ensuring your design emotes the right kind of feel (no aggressive flashing images or intrusive components), the use of soft colors, good contrasts, and using "neutral language" (IE: None aggressive or trollish comments in content) will often reduce the anxiety and stress which cause people suffering emotional problems to suffer. Just thought I would add to this as I didn't want people to think it's not possible to design with these people in mind (I recommend people buying a book on psychology to gain a better insight into their users).
    Next you'll tell me I have too much agressive red in my website. Seriously. If you're TARGETING that group then, yes, by all means design for them. But how do you code for them?

    I'm not making all my client's web sites goofy pastel for the possibility that someone with emotional issues might wander past. Setting the tone of the content? These aren't things that someone can have in a design and expect it to work for everyone... whereas, coding so that it's also screen-reader or googlebot-friendly does not change design or code (assuming yes of course the code was originally written semantically and logically and all that yadda).

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    Sorry to tell you this Dave, but your totally wrong, Section 508 (which I'm assuming your hinting towards) does indeed apply just to government sites, but that doesn't mean inherently that there's no laws which speak in general about websites needing to be accessible. In the USA there's the ADA (American Disabilities Act),
    Section 508 is an amendment to the ADA, which otherwise does not say anything about the Internet (the whole reason 508 was added). And it only applies to government sites, sites who recieve US funding or sites who dole out US funding (that was the original purpose, sites where you could find out information about stuff like getting Disability payments or find out where public money was going). Public, commercial and private websites are neither touched by current ADA nor the 508 specific section. Sure, this could change, but it's not changed yet.
    The other laws are dealing with non-US countries, therefore the US can be typical US and ignore them. And it does.

    The UK citizen would be entirely within their legal rights (as a disabled individual) to follow up legal action against the person in the USA for violating International law (especially with the new EU laws coming in) and they could have the person (under an extreme case) extradited to this country, charged and convicted under UK law for criminal offences against UK citizens (in regards to committing an offence against anti-discrimination laws).
    The US would fight that. They don't even extradite REAL crimminals to other countries half the time... they're certainly not going to ship the owner of Joe's Flash-based grocery site to the UK because some foreigner cried about it. The US and its citizens do not have to comply with UK laws, EU laws, or any other laws, unless the US agrees to it (the US would have to make a law saying US website owners must comply with UK or EU laws).

    Instead, it's the other way around. I remember when one of our politicians used the Freedom of Information Act to force the US to explain just WHY it was forcing Europeans to give up their banking information to the US (tho Europe was spineless enough to say yes to it, arg). The US makes demands of other countries; other countries do not make demands of the US.

  25. #75
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Next you'll tell me I have too much agressive red in my website. Seriously. If you're TARGETING that group then, yes, by all means design for them. But how do you code for them? I'm not making all my client's web sites goofy pastel for the possibility that someone with emotional issues might wander past. Setting the tone of the content? These aren't things that someone can have in a design and expect it to work for everyone... whereas, coding so that it's also screen-reader or googlebot-friendly does not change design or code (assuming yes of course the code was originally written semantically and logically and all that yadda).
    You can't code for them because emotional problems aren't by definition down to a physical issue which prevents them accessing the content, it's down to the way they interact and interpret the medium. I wasn't by any means trying to say that you need to cover such aspects, I was simply putting down a point that if you have people who may be using the website and may suffer emotional issues, there are things you can put in place which can increase psychological calmness and aids you can have which can make them less likely to act out of frustration. In regards to color schemes, I'm not saying you should stop using red or something, there is however a psychological link between how people interpret colors and I've seen research which suggests that changes in the color can influence the chances of people buying from you. All I'm saying in summary is, keep every potential issue in mind, psychology is one of the most powerful tools we have as creative visual types and it can impact our audience greatly (especially if they have emotional issues), not accounting for such issues can be detrimental.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Section 508 is an amendment to the ADA, which otherwise does not say anything about the Internet (the whole reason 508 was added). And it only applies to government sites, sites who recieve US funding or sites who dole out US funding (that was the original purpose, sites where you could find out information about stuff like getting Disability payments or find out where public money was going). Public, commercial and private websites are neither touched by current ADA nor the 508 specific section. Sure, this could change, but it's not changed yet.
    Good catch, I noticed after I posted (and the edit time went by) that I had attributed them (wrongly) as separate entities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    The US would fight that. They don't even extradite REAL crimminals to other countries half the time... they're certainly not going to ship the owner of Joe's Flash-based grocery site to the UK because some foreigner cried about it. The US and its citizens do not have to comply with UK laws, EU laws, or any other laws, unless the US agrees to it (the US would have to make a law saying US website owners must comply with UK or EU laws).
    While it's true their unlikely to do so, it's wrong to say that US website owners don't have to comply with international laws, if you trade with another nation (and websites often trade globally) you are REQUIRED to comply with all applicable laws with that nation. This has been well established in past legal cases where people have been sued across nations for violating laws which affect that nations citizens. Any site which deals with the UK in regards to selling or offering goods and or services can be legally held accountable for failures in meeting accessibility guidelines as they relate to the trade being undertaken. Essentially it's a case of you either comply with accessibility laws or you could end up getting tangled up in litigation (or forced to stop selling "within" that nation).


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •