Constructing Accessible Web Sites 301
| Constructing Accessible Web Sites | |
| author | Jim Thatcher, Paul Bohman, Michael Burks, Shawn Lawton Henry, Bob Regan, Sarah Swierenga, Mark D. Urban, Cynthia D. Waddell |
| pages | 415 |
| publisher | Glasshaus |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | actiondan |
| ISBN | 1904151000 |
| summary | The whys and hows of making web sites accessible to all. |
What does the book cover?
Chapter 1 is an introduction to web accessibility. I would guess that most people who pick up this book will already know at least a little bit about accessibility, but this chapter provides a good overview and presents some compelling arguments for providing accessible websites. Interestingly, none of these is based on a moral argument -- they are all sound reasons why it is in the interests of an organization to think about accessibility. For example, one of these sections mentions that people with disabilities in the U.S. are estimated to control a discretionary income of over $175 billion. Making a site accessible to these people gives it access to an additional market that non-accessible sites cannot tap.
This first chapter sets the tone for the whole book. It doesn't preach about accessibility for the sake of people with disabilities but rather seeks to convince the reader that accessibility is in their interests.
Chapter 2 concentrates on one of the major reasons for making web sites accessible - laws that compel us to do so. It presents an overview of the state of the law in different parts of the world and a couple of examples of cases involving web usability. I have to admit I skimmed this chapter, as I wanted to get on to the technical stuff.
In Chapter 3, the book gets on to the mechanics of accessibility -- assistive technologies. It provides a short survey of the screen readers and other technologies that are available. I would have liked to have seen more information here on how widespread these systems are, even if just approximate.
Chapter 4 is where the book starts talking about the actual work involved in creating accessible content. It runs down the basics of accessibility (most of it is good practice such as using ALT text and so on). The blink tag even gets a mention and a "good for them!" is given to Opera for not supporting it :) This chapter will not be news to anyone who has done any accessibility work (or even just best-practices web development). The information on how tables are handled by screen readers is good though.
Chapter 5 looks in more detail at navigation. The advice here is good even outside of an accessibility context and there are some good points about 'gotchas' that could make sites difficult to navigate with assistive technologies.
In Chapter 6, input gets the same treatment that navigation got in the last chapter. I wasn't sure about the stuff on PDF forms (does anyone actually use these for web input?) but the advice on HTML forms was great.
Chapter 7 is about testing for section 508 (of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act) compliance. Initially, this was another chapter that I skimmed, as I am not based in the U.S., but then I realised that the testing advice in this chapter is not just useful for section 508 compliance -- it is useful for general accessibility testing.
Chapter 8 studies the accessibility of web development tools themselves. This doesn't apply to me but it was interesting to see how the tools (Dreamweaver, Frontpage, GoLive, Homesite and BBEdit) compare in terms of usability. This would have been a lot easier if there had been a summary table of the ratings given to the applications.
Chapter 9 seemed a little out of place. It is on "Separating Style from Presentation" and basically looks at CSS. I'm sure most people picking up this book will, like me, not need to be taught CSS basics. I skipped the chapter and very nearly missed an interesting little section on aural stylesheets.
I was surprised that chapter 10 was devoted to Flash, as I expected that Flash coverage in an accessibility book would be limited to a few paragraphs lambasting Macromedia for creating such an inaccessible technology. Well, it turns out that the new version of Flash supports accessibility much better than previous ones. This chapter was a real eye-opener for me. Clearly there is more work to be done but well done to Macromedia for putting accessibility support in!
Chapter 11 didn't really interest me much -- it seems to be more aimed at people who need to implement an accessibility strategy, one to hand over to managers once the technical content of the book is digested.
Chapter 12 is a bit of a heads-up on newer technologies and how they affect accessibility. There is some brief but decent discussion of how technologies such as SVG support accessibility.
The last actual chapter, Chapter 13, is a more in-depth look at U.S. web accessibility law. This was another one that I skimmed but one section did catch my eye. There is a discussion that raises the scary idea that web developers may be held liable for inaccessible web sites, even if their client told them to ignore the issue. If this is true, then it is an important point for every web developer to consider -- could you be held liable?
There are three appendices in the book; a quick reference guide summarises the most important advice given in the book, a glossary of terms and an appendix that details the U.S. Section 508 legislation.
Conclusion
Apart from the basic CSS coverage and the more U.S.-specific sections, I found the vast majority of the information in the book to be very interesting to me. The style was good too -- I was surprised that a book with 8 authors manages to maintain such a consistent and readable tone throughout.
Overall, I found the book a much more interesting read than I was expecting it to be. It gives specific advice about the way web sites should be constructed with accessibility in mind and offers strong arguments for following the advice.
It seems that accessibility is going to be a fact of life in web development. That being the case, every web developer needs to learn at least something about it, if only to use as ammunition in interviews. I would definitely recommend Constructing Accessible Websites as a good source of information on the area.
You can purchase Constructing Accessible Web Sites from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Finally getting attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
We take this so seriously that we've now hired a blind guy, to ensure that all of our sites are accesible. It's quite amazing what I'd discovered within a month of working alongside him! I've been developing/designing for years now, and thought I was pretty good at alting my tags and commenting my forms... But he's really opened my eyes to how a few simple and quick practices can be adopted to make a BIG difference.
So I recommend books of this ilk (I've not read this one yet obviously). You really can't afford to ignore these matters anymore. Even if just to find out about blindness accessiblity... generally though, Nielsen is right; most sites have significant failings in these areas.
Buy it
M.
Does anyone else have a problem with this???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I think that web sites should be made to be accessible to everyone
Again, I don't want to sound like a big jerk here, but where does freedom of expression and freesom to create come into play here? If a person wants a "cool" looking web site, and uses features that don't follow the "code"
However, since I am a web developer, maybe I should pick up a copy of this book to keep up on the laws on this issue
Are there any other good books out there that have similar content?? - anyone???
Never understood until... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't really have an appreciation for accessibility until you need it. It is a good lesson for everyone designing web sites to really try to use them with their monitor turned off and with speech software or on a television screen from across the room.
If anyone cares about your website, then the content matters as much or more than how it looks on your monitor. Well, I guess except for pr0n.
Jumping Ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead of focusing on making the web accessible for people using alternate access methods, we should settle on a web standard. It would make the alternate methods that much easier to implement.
We don't nee more legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the way to go about writing univerally readable pages is to incorporate it into W3C HTML specs. I'm not saying eliminating all the things that aren't ADA compliant like javascript and tables. I talking about bringing the standard up to speed and making sure all browsers adhere to it strictly. If all browsers adhere to the standards very strictly then no non-compliant pages can be viewed with them. There's the incentive for webmasters to stick to the standards. Why are standards such an important thing? If everyone adhered to the standards, it would be infinitely easier to build tools for people with disabilities. Audio readers could parse the pages and read them back in an easy to understand way. ADA people could do what they need/want to do without pushing draconian requirements on to the rest of us.
Like I said before, I don't mean to sound like a hardass. I just don't see how the needs of the few could justify draconian legislation. If we could adhere to a standard, it would make things easier for everyone, not just handicap persons.
Hopefully for the *users*.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a disabled person I hope people take accessibility seriously because there are disabled people who need or wish to use the internet as well. I have a permanent visual impairment and one of the worst things is websites that force a tiny font on you instead of respecting your browser's settings for what *you* need the fonts to be sized as. I really hope that people would design ther websites in such a way that both disabled and non-disabled can use them easily, and I know this is totally possible, and doesn't even require any great sacrifice on the part of the designer in having a nice looking site. Unfortunately, of course, I suppose most people won't bother until it becomes a legal requirement. Still it would be nice if they did...
Ending Words (Score:2, Insightful)
You hit the sweet spot here. The problem is, with the trend in websites today (all flash/frames/javascript), no-one care.
Re:Boring Web (Score:3, Insightful)
It's web designers who are ignorant of the correct use of CSS, and the importance of simple things like how to support non-Javascript browsers who think that accessibility means every page looking the same. It's nonsense.
You can make beautiful, accessible pages [alistapart.com] if you know what you're doing. A List Apart are hardly ignorant or non-artistic.
Does that look exactly the same as UseIt.com to you?
Re:Lemme guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
My mother is legally blind and I help her with windows usage often. Frames can be done if the Author is concious of what he/she is doing. But trash such as right clicking to save a page and the page not saving because its appearing through some deep linkage garbage is terrible. Screen readers can not dig through all that garbage.
The days when we all use HTML editors to do our websites were much kinder. Now that we use non-html tools, the generated code is quite a mess but no one cares. YOu used to be able to even read a web page through telnet. You can forget it now.
Hes right on all the flash TV Wannabe jibberish. But you can always have 2 sites. In stead of frames / non-frames, go Standard, or accessible. An accessible site can be BLAND and just a list of links and pages such as generated by TUX> or whatever that linux html generator thingy is.
Glad to see this. M$ has been bullsitting on Accessibility for ages. Though they are far ahead of Linux.
Re:crazy laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Because for Web technology, the extra costs of making your site accessible are trivial, and have lots of additional benefits, like making it accessible to sighted people browsing from PDAs, cellphones and WebTV.
Re:crazy laws (Score:5, Insightful)
First, and less important, bird watching and target-shooting are among hobbies of blind people. Yes, I was surprised to learn that too. Bad examples, but I know what you mean.
Second, I do understand your point, but think about this from different perspective. There are around 7000 registered people who are either blind or visually impaired in Slovenia, which has a population of 2 million. How many would be willing to spend time and money to make sites accessible for them? I can even give you an answer to this, because lacking legislation that USA has in this regard, the answer is pretty much noone does.
I believe it's important for society that nobody is a second class citizen. Sometimes this means that majority of us have to make some effort for that. And if sensibility of public is not enough, than it's good if there's at least legislation to push us all in the right direction.
Re:Why buy the book... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't get interactive help like that from a book.
Re:Does anyone else have a problem with this???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, come on. If this really bothered people, wouldn't browsers provide an option to disable it? How much time does the typical user spend mousing over non-navigation images anyway? This is exactly the sort of non-objection that creates the need for legislation.
If you want to skip the reading (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make sure that your site is browsable with lynx [browser.org]. That's a pretty good indication that you've placed content and usability above presentation.
Hmm, I wonder how text-to-speech handles the <blink> tag?
Re:Boring Web (Score:3, Insightful)
If most designers focused on usability as much as they focus on "artistic merit", the web would be a lot more legible.
I'm all for cutting edge design, but most web sites have an application function that gets lost in teeny-tiny type, hard-to-read color combinations and excessively busy animation.
The LAW (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is a reasonable expectation that web sites won't exclude a subset of customers. This is not being addressed through any criminal process, but through various civil cases brought against individual sites. One of the most famous, of course, was the Olympic site debacle, for two iterations of the Games. After the 2000 games site was sued for not having such basics as alt-tags or a text-based menu, the 2002 games committed the same mistakes. It's just good web design to allow your code to gracefully degrade, rather than break in anything but the newest and most-overloaded browser.
I know a bit about Section 508 because I've had to do web design for DoD the past several years. Many other DoD sites, I've noticed, claim compliance while using a Flash-based menu or Java applets for buttons. Clueless.
Re:Hopefully for the *users*.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you, you fucking asshole. How entitled do you feel?
I do not feel 'entitled'. I do feel that it is not too much to ask that people respect my browser's font settings. I've heard the same thing from plenty of people who are *not* disabled.
Was Picasso told to make his paintings larger so that some genetic mistake could see them more easily? No, he was not.
No, indeed he was not. However this is not a question of art (the laws at any rate are not). The question is one of useability in everyday places (such as business and government websites). You can do up your homepage however you like. If I find it horrid and unaccessible I will simply ignore it. However I think I should point out that nine times out of ten if I find a site unuseable most of my web-designer friends will concur. The "beauty" of websites is rarely seen in using tiny fonts.
When you mandate it by law, you take arts away from the artist and put it in the hands of government.
I wholeheartedly agree and would not dare ask anyone actually creating artwork for the sake of art to modify their work for me (or anybody else). But this isn't about art for the sake of art, it's about websites which people need to use for ordinary things such as shopping or researching governmental regulations.
And furthermore, there is not a need for you to use the Internet. I'm sure that you receive disability checks and are quite taken care of by my tax dollars. Therefore your only need is that fat check. Once that comes you've got food, clothing, and shelter. The Internet is not a need and having porno stories read to you is not a need you fucking assgoblin.
I think you will find that disabled people (such as myself) do *not* like being on disability. I'm not on disability, and I don't want to be. Those who I know that are on disability would much rather *not* be disabled and be able to do the things that others do (such as driving). Most people do not want to live on welfare.
I guess that the front of the bus is no good place for black people. I suppose that they don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus. Black people certainly never needed the use of the facilities which others had and were not available to them. Don't think it's the same? I bet there are a lot of things available on the internet which are simply not available to people offline. I think everyone should have access to the *information* on the internet. Poor, rich, disabled, abled, whatever. The internet has a huge amount of promise for the world at large and making it useful to everybody seems very worthwhile.
These accomodations usually help everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Examples: Ramped entrances, curb cuts at intersections for sidewalks, large and clear print, low-sided bathtubs, hand-rails everywhere, wider wheelchair entrances, lower switches and controls on walls...
The list goes on, and of course there are exceptions of accomodations that are either counter to the needs of those not at benefit (or just annoying), but generally I've found that a well-designed web site or doorway helps everyone.
There are many other positive effects too! (Score:5, Insightful)
My clients come to me wondering why Google doesn't index them - their site is a mess! All those fancy Flash animations are just plain opaque to the search engines and screen readers, of course they can't navigate!
Quick Question... (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is that no one needs to use the internet. People got along just fine before internet use was popular. Now we have a great convenience to do everything from ordering pizza to booking flights online. Does this mean that everyone must by law be able to use these conveniences? We don't allow the blind to fly airplanes, nor do we allow multiple amputees to fly the space shuttle. In those cases, there's a safety hazzard, obviously, but we're still denying them that. I don't see too many blind atheletes running around either (although the ref' sometimes appears to be). Should all businesses be forced to serve a customer over the telephone who's blind, deaf, and mute? Surely it's possible to serve this customer over the phone, but you know what? People got along fine before phones as well. As a side note, I don't believe newpapers are very accessible to the blind either.
Should we bring the web experience for everyone to a lower level to make it more accessible to people? Two websites? Do you know how much more that would cost a company like Southwest Airlines? The more likely scenerio is that if they were forced to make it accessible to the blind, we'd see a very, very wattered-down, much less user-friendly website where Southwest's site used to be. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair to make it less accessible to millions just to make it a little more accessible to dozens. As far as the cheaper web faires, I'm sure Southwest would be happy to make a best effort to ensure they help the disabled who contact them via telephone to get the best faires possible. Has anyone even asked?
My point is simply this - we should be thankful for whatever modern conveniences we're able to make use of, as we're much better off than those who came before us. Those who are paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc are now much better off than ever before. But don't think for a moment that that entitles every single person to enjoy every single convenience. I think this is one instance where more government intervention isn't going to help matters at all.
Re:Does anyone else have a problem with this???? (Score:2, Insightful)
> that don't follow the "code"
You clearly don't understand web technologies. The whole point
of using a markup language (such as SGML or XML) with separate
style information (CSS) is so that you can make the site _look_
however you want it to look, without butchering the content in
the process. It's not even that hard. You just write according
to the specs mostly, and then work around a small handful of
browser layout bugs. (So far, I've discovered one significant
layout issue in Gecko and two in IE6; that's three. If I did
web design for a living I'd probably have discovered a couple
more, but really the major browsers these days _mostly_ follow
the specs.)
> or if they don't want ugly alt tags popping up
Alt text doesn't pop up unless you use an ancient browser from
the days of yore. The relevant standards clearly indicate that
it should not, and I only know about one browser released in
the last two years that violates this, and it's still claiming
compatibility with Mozilla 4 (which was obsolete quite long ago),
so it really can't be considered a modern browser. If you happen
to _want_ tooltips, there are some provisions for that, but they
are totally separate from alternate text.
Not just low res, but high res too (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't these people do any testing? If you want an example, just check out the link for the Lulu Tech Circus here on /. This site just sucks.
Re:Let's get something straight (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually don't speak this strongly but from someone who is married to a blind person:
You are an idiot.
Computers and the digitization/electronic distrobution of knowledge could, if done properly, be the single greatest boon towards overcoming the obsticles the handicapped face that mankind has ever invented. With a very small amount of work almost any real information in a computer can be processed and fed out of a computer such that anyone has access to it. The net is not dependant upon eyesight unless lazy developers make it that way. At worst you design a bare-bones text only version. At best you simply add a few tags while you're in the design stage. These relativley simple accomidations open up the entire world worth of information to a segment of the population that previously had very little access to it.
The whole point of a society is to have the whole act such that the individual gains benefit. Your attitude is bad for society and bad for humanity.
Bobby (Score:4, Insightful)
I've used it extensively over the past year. It used to be freeware when it was owned by CAST, but still... at $99USD it is a miniscule cost for any company that must comply with accessibility on it's web pages.
"Bobby" [watchfire.com]
Re:crazy laws (Score:3, Insightful)
The laws are there because our society deems it important to integrate the disabled into society at large, and society can't rely on businesses to do it when it makes no business sense to do so.
As for your strawman examples of bird-watchers and target-shooters, if you didn't make those sites accessible to the blind, nobody would likely care. The laws are there to give a disabled person recourse if he wants to access a certain resource and he can't. Contrary to what the libertarian/right wing says, there simply isn't an army of blind people going around harassing "inaccessible" businesses.
Re:We don't nee more legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, your webmaster is incompetent. Tell him to learn HTML. Accesibility has been built into HTML from the beginning. The only source of nightmare in designing an accessible site is a misunderstanding of the web. The most common error is trying to make the web a graphic design medium. The web is not a graphic design medium. Disavow yourself of the mistaken notion that you can control what your site will look like on every (any) browser. To do that is to defeat the central premise of the web.
HTML was designed to provide a logical description of textual content, which then could be formatted to the needs of the user. The designers of HTML have taken great pains to ensure that HTML, when written correctly, remains accessible in every type of browser. The problem is that incompetence is dominant in the web design field, and people write incorrect, poorly thought-out HTML, attempting to do something with the technology that is counter to its purpose. Dictating layout robs users of one of the great benefits of the web: that of being in control of the content's presentation.
The web was designed to support users changing font sizes, etc., to meet their own needs. Fortunately, it was also designed with accessibility in mind, and thus a properly written HTML page is one that is also accessible. If you're using stupid tricks like spacer images and tables all over the place to try to control layout, you deserve whatever nightmares you're bringing on yourself.
Re:The internet isn't a RIGHT!!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
While we're talking about people w/ disabilities. How many members of congress do you see that are disabled? Is there anything about their job that requires more than a working brain and a way to communicate?
I have a small business. If I ever get big enough I may be faced w/ hiring someone to help a wheelchair bound person run my stockroom because they can't reach the top shelves. How reasonable is that?
My point is that we have let the government have too much to say as it is now!! Our government is chipping them away piece by piece.
Ask yourself this --- Who bothers you more on an airplane? A 6'5" bodybuilder or a 78 year old grandma w/ a little swiss army knife w/ scissors? Everyone is willing to give up tons of rights for a false sense of safety.
Isn't it interesting that the SNIPER is picking one of the tightest GUN CONTROL areas in the country? Could it be because if he tried it somewhere else someone might return fire?
Give us the tools and we'll finish the job (Score:4, Insightful)
If this appeared as a default tab in DW, Frontpage, and other html editors, it would become very hard for people to claim they didnt know their page looked crap in anything but IE6.
The best hope for this I guess is Mozilla, which has an ongoing accessibility project [mozilla.org]. If only the option to turn off fonts, images, tables,
-Baz
Re:We don't nee more legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of a simple markup language like HTML is so that its easily computer readable. Bloating markup with markup that doesn't describe the structure of the document merely obfusticates the value of the content, and the result is unusable to many.
The solution is not to bloat browsers up with more error correction routines to fix the problems you can't be bothered to fix. The solution is to make browsers conform to an existing recommendation, and encourage content authors to take responsibility for their content.
That's why the W3 has _both_ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (not to mention Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines). Everyone has their bit to do, their area of responsible. It is time to take responsibility for the websites you deliver.
The best advise for web authors... (Score:2, Insightful)
I browse the web with JavaScript turned off, and it's much more enjoyable.