[gui-talk] Fwd: Article: Most websites' failing disabled

Sun Dec 10 22:24:31 CST 2006

Apparently you have not been visiting the right pages.  I run into them all
the time.  The most annoying ones I run across are the ones that are
associated with accessing a version of webmail for whatever service I am
using at the moment.  My current service simply states "graphic", "graphic",
and so on.  This is actually a picture of an email icon stating webmail and
it is a link used to access the webmail interface.  The last isp that I used
had labeled their graphic with a really long url address.  I sent them a
message asking if they could change the label and explaining why and what
needed to be done and they did it.  Simply telling my screenreader what
something was would not work since this was a problem when I was away from
my home computer where I used Outlook.

There have been other instances that I have come across but I can't think of
them at this moment.

Cindy

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of Joel Deutsch
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:12 AM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Article: Most websites' failing disabled

Would someone mind explaining why such an emphasis is always placed on the
alt text labeling of graphics?  If such graphics include functional controls
that can't be perceived or acted upon  without being labeled so that a
screen reader can identify them, that's one thing.  Of course that's of
vital importance where functionality is concerned.

But I always have had the impression that what's meant is something more
like pictures or illustrations.  Well, maybe my Web visiting experience is
different from some general pattern that's assumed, but the only pictorial
page elements I'm ever aware of not being able to see are photos on the
pages of newspaper articles showing a scene or a person discussed in the
article, just as is done in some print newspaper stories.  Or pictures of
anything from a street scene in Baghdad in an article about the war to a
photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge on a Web page of the State of
California.

Well, I'm sorry I can't see what Iraqis look like and are dressed like as an
American convoy of Hum Vees and other vehicles rumbles down the street, but
I don't see what benefit  it would be if the picture were labeled, "photo of
American troops driving through Sadr City."  And as far as the generous
California State Web site goes, with its ubiquitous (and properly alt text
labeled) picture of the iconic Golden Gate Bridge, well, it's nice to know
that's there, but other than that, it doesn't much matter to me.  I've seen
the Golden Gate Bridge when I could still see well and lived in San
Francisco, and saw it in photos all my life, too.  So, great.  Now I can
visualize one or another variety of the many stock photos of the bridge when
told that this is what's in that dark rectangle I can make out on the Web
page.  I don't mind.  But what possible good could it do anyone who's never
seen the bridge or a photo of it in the first place?  Would it help someone
who's never seen New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to be told there's a photo
of him alongside an article?

Anyway, I don't mean to be awfully negative, so please, no flaming.  I'm
just telling my own experience.  And if what's meant is actually functional
graphical items like control buttons and active links, someone please tell
me.

Thanks.
 otheree the an accrivesciture ecorative And I don't needrit e includes the
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Pattison
To: GUI Talk ; Access-L
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:51 AM
Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: Article: Most websites' failing disabled

>From: Anna Saxon-Taylor annast at netspeed.com.au
>To: VIP-L vip-l at softspeak.com.au
>
>'Most websites' failing disabled
>Most of the leading websites around the world are failing to provide
>the most basic accessibility standards for people with disabilities.
>Ninety seven percent of websites did not provide even minimum levels
>of accessibility, a new survey has found.
>
>Accessibility agency Nomensa tested the leading websites in five
>different sectors across 20 countries
>
>Only three websites, including the British Prime Minister's site,
>achieved the minimum standards.
>
>The report, commissioned by the United Nations as part of its
>International Day of Disabled Persons, will make depressing reading
>for anyone committed to the idea of equal web access for all.
>
>Multiple failings
>
>
>     KEY SHORTFALLS
>      93% failed to provide adequate text descriptions for graphics
>      73% relied on JavaScript for important functionality
>      78% used colours with poor contrast, causing issues for those
> with colour blindness
>      98% did not follow industry web standards for the programming code
>      97% did not allow people to alter or resize pages
>      89% offered poor page navigation
>      87% used pop-ups causing problems for those using screen
> magnification software
>
>"This is a global failure and we are very disappointed with the
>results," said Alex Metcalfe, head of client services at Nomensa.
>
>He added: "It is important for commercial, legal and moral reasons
>that websites put in place a strategy for accessibility, both in
>terms of quick wins and longer term improvements."
>
>Nomensa tested representative websites from five key sectors -
>travel, retail, banking, government and media.
>
>In the UK, the websites looked at included Marks & Spencer, Lloyds
>TSB, British Airways and The Guardian.
>
>The BBC's website was not included in the survey.
>
>The British Prime Minster's sites alongside the Spanish government
>site and the German Chancellor's site were the only three to conform
>to the most basic standards.
>
>In order to reach the minimum standards - tested against the Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) - websites needed to provide
>adequate text descriptions for graphical content so that visually
>impaired people could 'read' pictures. 93% of the websites failed to
>meet those guidelines.
>
>A further 73% failed to make the grade because of their reliance on
>JavaScript for some of the website's functionality. JavaScript does
>not work with some screen readers used by those with impaired vision.
>
>Ninety eight percent did not follow industry web standards for
>programming code, meaning the foundations for web accessibility
>simply were not there.
>
>Time to talk
>
>
>     Building dull, technically compliant websites is easy but
> building commercially successful sites that are also accessible is not,
>      Mark Gristock, Foviance
>
>Mark Gristock, marketing director of usability firm Foviance, is
>unsurprised by the results.
>
>"This is the same results we always get. The guidelines have been in
>place for seven years but they aren't actually checkpoints so people
>can interpret them in a variety of ways. What is needed is practical
>advice about what happens when you build a website.
>
>"Building dull, technically compliant websites is easy but building
>commercially successful sites that are also accessible is not," he said.
>
>It was time to share examples of good practice so that web
>developers could start incorporating accessibility into the design
>of websites, he suggested
>
>"Accessibility consultants and organisations for the disabled clutch
>their knowledge of user requirements to them like they are the key
>to future profits - which indeed they are.
>
>"If they had any interest in raising standards, they would be
>sharing their findings with the world and opening dialogue with the
>design and business community about how best to integrate techniques
>with standard processes," he said.
>
>The World Health Organisation estimates that there are around 600
>million disabled people worldwide, which represents about 10% of the
>world's population. Of these, around 80% are believed to live in
>developing countries.
>
>The countries surveyed by Nomensa were Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
>Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, Mexico,
>Morocco, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, United Arab
>Emirates, United Kingdom and United States of America.
>
>Story from BBC NEWS:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm
>
>Published: 2006/12/05 13:12:10 GMT
>
>Cheers, Anna

Regards Steve
Email:  srp at internode.on.net
Skype:  steve1963
MSN Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/573 - Release Date: 12/5/2006
4:07 PM