By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,788 Members | 1,115 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,788 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Building Accessible Website

P: n/a
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?

Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
40 Replies


P: n/a

"Tools" <mb***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5*************************@posting.google.co m...
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?

Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?


Are blind people the only ones who have a physical impairment that requires
accessible design?
-Karl
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Tools wrote:
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?
Lynx is a good choice.
http://www.lynx.browser.org/
Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?


IIRC, there's IBM HPR, which is available on a trial basis. 30 days, I
think.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Tools wrote:
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?


Opera's probably the best all-rounder, as it has several user style modes
to simulate text-only and other situations.

--
Mark.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
In article <e5*************************@posting.google.com> , Tools wrote:
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?


For me that browser would be links, as i'm using that browser....
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Tools wrote:
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility? [snip] Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads
best?


IIRC, there's IBM HPR, which is available on a trial basis. 30 days, I
think.


Yes. Well worth taking the trial, because of what can be learned. Sobering.
http://www-306.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html

There are a couple of other useful techniques. One is simply to "save as
text". This at least shows how the content linearises, and reveals some things
to avoid. Another is to use Opera in "small screen mode", because that too
linearises, and you find out just hard it can be to navigate round complex
pages.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Tools wrote:
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?


Lynx is a good choice.
http://www.lynx.browser.org/
Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?


IIRC, there's IBM HPR, which is available on a trial basis. 30 days, I
think.


There's also JAWS screen reader from Freedom Scientific. The demo will
function for a total 30 minutes between reboots.

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Karl Groves" <ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...

"Tools" <mb***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5*************************@posting.google.co m...
What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?

Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?
Are blind people the only ones who have a physical impairment that

requires accessible design?


Good point for the OP. He probably isn't using audio, so that's not likely
to be a concern. There are users who are unable to use a keyboard, but for
them to use a computer *at all* requires that they have some tool, whether
hardware- or software-based or both, that provides for character entry to
applications, so the issue from the perspective of web use is whether the
user agent itself recognizes input from the assistive technology. If it
does, then the mechanism by which the character input was introduced is
transparent to the web page.

That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:

1. Those who will access your site visually, but can't read small or even
"normal" text sizes. No fixed fonts should be used, and flexible page
layouts are best for accommodating content when the size of the type the
user will select is unknown.

2. Those who will access your site visually, but can't discern colors. Color
should never be the sole visual means of conveying information.

3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should be
entirely usable by keyboard alone.

4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
used. Simply put, avoid blinking.

General usability principles are particularly important for people with
special requirements.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Tools mb***********@hotmail.com wrote:

What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?

Is there a free screen reader I can use to test how my site reads best?


you aren't going to get a good test by just using a different
browser...there are some good suggestions so far...further things to
ponder

colour blindness...how good is the contrast so that colour blind users can
still use the site effectively

RSI, physical disabilities...how much scrolling and clicking does it take
to get around the site

in general you need to mentally run through the likely problems and look
at the site in the light of them...it's actually best if you can integrate
this into the basic design process rather than check afterwards...a lot of
accessibility/usability concerns dictate basic choices about how the
design should be...it's easy to tackle them right at the beginning of
creating the design, it can be hard work done later

some useful links

<http://diveintoaccessibility.org/>

<http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/default.htm>

<http://www.uie.com/>

<http://www.useit.com/>

<http://www.colormatters.com/optics.html>

<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/>

<http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/accessibility.html>

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Eric Jarvis wrote:
Tools mb***********@hotmail.com wrote:

What's the best browser to test for website accessibility?
[snip] colour blindness...how good is the contrast so that colour blind
users can still use the site effectively

[snip]

Very good point. Here is a colour contrast analyser:
http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp

Here is a way of checking what colour-blind people see:
http://www.vischeck.com/
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:HS***************@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net:
[snip]
colour blindness...how good is the contrast so that colour blind
users can still use the site effectively [snip]

Here is a way of checking what colour-blind people see:
http://www.vischeck.com/
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php


But that website suffers from the same problem, because
when I take a look at the examples, some of them look
the same to me(but then again, I'm partly colorblind ;-)

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Dave Patton wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:HS***************@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net:

[snip]
Here is a way of checking what colour-blind people see:
http://www.vischeck.com/
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php


But that website suffers from the same problem, because
when I take a look at the examples, some of them look
the same to me(but then again, I'm partly colorblind ;-)


I can't comment! I have good (long) sight, and I'm not colour blind.

I use these sites to help me judge my pages from the perspective of people
with visual difficulties. I rely on what others say, because I can't directly
experience it for myself.

If these sites are poor, you will have to take it up with them, because I
can't represent you and others with visual difficulties.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:Hexkc.1313$7S2.196@newsfe1-win:
Dave Patton wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
news:HS***************@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net:

[snip]
Here is a way of checking what colour-blind people see:
http://www.vischeck.com/
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php


But that website suffers from the same problem, because
when I take a look at the examples, some of them look
the same to me(but then again, I'm partly colorblind ;-)


I can't comment! I have good (long) sight, and I'm not colour blind.

I use these sites to help me judge my pages from the perspective of
people with visual difficulties. I rely on what others say, because I
can't directly experience it for myself.

If these sites are poor, you will have to take it up with them,
because I can't represent you and others with visual difficulties.


Barry - that smiley was there for a reason :-)
I was just kidding - of course they can't be seen "normally"
by colorblind people - I don't think there are websites that
show colorblind people how websites look to normally sighted people ;-)

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
In article <Xn*********************************@24.71.223.159 >,
Dave Patton <no**@none.com> wrote:
I don't think there are websites that
show colorblind people how websites look to normally sighted people ;-)


Try about:blank.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:

1. Those who will access your site visually, but can't read small or
even "normal" text sizes. No fixed fonts should be used, and flexible
page layouts are best for accommodating content when the size of the
type the user will select is unknown.

2. Those who will access your site visually, but can't discern colors.
Color should never be the sole visual means of conveying information.

3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should
be entirely usable by keyboard alone.
3A. Those who can and do use a pointing device, but don't have the eye-
hand coordination of someone who grew up playing video games. The main
offender here is click targets that are too small (often the result of
using a microfont for links). Also a problem are timing-based interfaces
(like the old Java applet that scrolls or flashes a series of links in the
same spot, with the user having to click at just the right moment). And
earlier today I ran into a site (<http://www.prospect.org>, a magazine
site) with a dropdown menu that required really fine motions to avoid
dropping down the wrong section.
4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics
are used. Simply put, avoid blinking.

General usability principles are particularly important for people
with special requirements.


Definitely true. Remember that even if a disability merely slows down,
rather than precludes, use of a site, then the user is going to be a bit
quick with the back button; as Nielsen and others point out, with all the
sites out there people won't stay on one that's a hassle to use.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
> That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
....
3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should be
entirely usable by keyboard alone.

I assume this means that image maps are insufficient. In other words,
there should be an additional means of navigation - yes? Does this also
apply if the purpose of the image map is to identify the coordinates
clicked (e.g. to determine longitude/latitude on a map)?

You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the point
is that even if such functionality is third party provided, can't it be
construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person could
simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable by
keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
another poster mentioned)?

Also, I'm aware of
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm
Is there a site corresponding to the EU version?

Csaba Gabor
PS. The above is not meant to incite. If you are inflamed, please
don't respond because, if there is to be exchange on this topic, I'm
only interested in a dry discussion.
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Csaba Gabor" <ne**@CsabaGabor.com> wrote in
news:40******@andromeda.datanet.hu:
You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the
point is that even if such functionality is third party provided,
can't it be construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person
could simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable
by keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
another poster mentioned)?


You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to be
enabled (and, on older versions of Windows, installed). It uses the keys
on the numeric pad to emulate mouse movements. However, using it for
navigation is much slower than proper keyboard navigation would be, so it's
not user-friendly to rely on it for anything except geographic coordinate
picking from server-side imagemaps or similar functions that have no
practical keyboard equivalent.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Eric Bohlman" <eb******@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@130.133.1.4 ...
You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to be

Thanks for the tip.
navigation is much slower than proper keyboard navigation would be, so it's not user-friendly to rely on it for anything except geographic coordinate
picking from server-side imagemaps or similar functions that have no
practical keyboard equivalent.


Agreed.
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Csaba Gabor wrote:
You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard


That doesn't help much if the user is dependant on a braille output
device :)
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
"Csaba Gabor" <ne**@CsabaGabor.com> wrote:
That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:...
3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should be
entirely usable by keyboard alone.

I assume this means that image maps are insufficient.


Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of links
is also made available. Client-side image maps are fine as long as
they are marked up correctly with ALT properties, because the UA can
permit cycling through them in the same way as ordinary links. IE and
Mozilla let you tab through the areas of an image map, displaying a
border around each of them as you go. Voice browsers can likewise
include image map areas along with A elements and form fields in the
page navigation cycle.

I just discovered, though, that Opera ignores image maps, which is a
grave deficiency.
In other words,
there should be an additional means of navigation - yes? Does this also
apply if the purpose of the image map is to identify the coordinates
clicked (e.g. to determine longitude/latitude on a map)?
That's a server-side image map, which cannot be accessed with the
keyboard. Either a client-side image map should be used instead, if
possible. Otherwise, an alternative means of entering the same input
by keyboard does need to be provided.

You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation?
Only for moving the active window around on your desktop. That's of no
use within an application.
Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the point
is that even if such functionality is third party provided, can't it be
construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person could
simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable by
keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
another poster mentioned)?
Even if such an aid is available and practical to use for those with
limited manual dexterity, it won't suffice overall, because among the
users who can't use a pointing device are the blind. They don't
experience the web page as a two dimensional plane with individually
accessible points, but as a linear stream of verbal content. The
concept of a point on the page just doesn't exist within the framework
of their browsing experience.
Also, I'm aware of
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm
Is there a site corresponding to the EU version?
Jukka Korpela mentioned a few months ago that the EU doesn't have
requirements for accessibility, only recommendations. Sorry, I don't
know where to find them.

Csaba Gabor
PS. The above is not meant to incite. If you are inflamed, please
don't respond because, if there is to be exchange on this topic, I'm
only interested in a dry discussion.


I thought your questions were entirely reasonable.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
I just discovered, though, that Opera ignores image maps, which is a
grave deficiency.


....by which I mean that Opera excludes image maps from keyboard-based
navigation. They work fine if you click on them.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of
links is also made available.
That means going too far. If there is some functionality that can only
work via a selection of a specific location in an image (say, zooming in
a map), then which one is better:
- nobody can use it, since it has not been implemented, regarding it as
a violation of accessibility
- most people can use it, and the functionality is clearly described,
with its inherent limitations?
On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.
Client-side image maps are fine as long
as they are marked up correctly with ALT properties,


No, they are not. The major browsers have horrendously poor support to
client-side image maps when image loading is disabled. Check it yourself,
or see http://wwww.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.html

In special cases, a client-side image map could constitute a useful
alternative to a list of links. I'm mainly thinking about real maps, like
selecting a state from the map of the United States, or a country from
the map of Europe. But there might be other cases as well. Anyway, the
image map should be regarded as a secondary alternative, with a list of
links being the real thing, not vice versa.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.


Absolutely. I once foolishly had a whole navigation menu without any
other means of navigation in a site that I maintain. That was when the
WWW was new and cool. I was trying to have a cool site too. I've
learned a lot since then.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>,
Stan McCann <st**@surecann.com> wrote:
That was when the WWW was new and cool.


You mean, it isn't anymore?

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
Eric Bohlman wrote:
"Csaba Gabor" <ne**@CsabaGabor.com> wrote in
news:40******@andromeda.datanet.hu:
You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)?
You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to
be enabled (and, on older versions of Windows, installed). It uses the
keys on the numeric pad to emulate mouse movements.


Similar features exist for X Window System servers, however I personally
haven't gotten them to work outside of xf86cfg.
However, using it for navigation is much slower than proper keyboard
navigation would be, so it's not user-friendly to rely on it for anything
except geographic coordinate picking from server-side imagemaps or similar
functions that have no practical keyboard equivalent.


Agreed. Just because it's possible with the keyboard, does not mean it's
easy, or desirable.

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:

[...]

4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
used. Simply put, avoid blinking.


How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?

--
John Carr (jf*@mit.edu)
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On 03 May 2004 12:31:58 GMT, jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
used. Simply put, avoid blinking.


How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?


One of my least favourite offenders: gamesradar.msn.co.uk

and this guy (I do _not_ want that icon anywhere on my LJ)
http://www.livejournal.com/allpics.b...azrus_armagedn

There's a sizable, and increasing, sector of the population that's
diagnosed as having some form of Asperger's, autistic specturm
disorder or similar. Now such conditions might not make people
susceptible to seizures from a strobo-site, but they certainly cause
cognitive problems.
--
Smert' spamionam
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of
links is also made available.
That means going too far. If there is some functionality that can only
work via a selection of a specific location in an image (say, zooming in
a map), then which one is better:
- nobody can use it, since it has not been implemented, regarding it as
a violation of accessibility
- most people can use it, and the functionality is clearly described,
with its inherent limitations?
On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.
Client-side image maps are fine as long
as they are marked up correctly with ALT properties,


No, they are not. The major browsers have horrendously poor support to
client-side image maps when image loading is disabled. Check it yourself,
or see http://wwww.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.html


I hadn't realized that. Thanks for pointing it out. To the extent that it
matters, though, the problem is with a browser deficiency, not inherent
inaccessibility of the markup. In other words, if the application is one
where it's considered sufficient to add id and header attributes to the TH
and TD tags and say "I'm done", without regard to whether current UAs are
doing anything useful and correct with those attributes, then likewise for
client-side image maps. I'm not saying this to argue one way or another as
to whether client-side image maps are still acceptable, I'm just pointing
out a consideration that can be made. Of course, it's *easy* to provide a
set of text links as well, so there's little reason to argue against it.

What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content? What's the current
browser support for that?

In special cases, a client-side image map could constitute a useful
alternative to a list of links. I'm mainly thinking about real maps, like
selecting a state from the map of the United States, or a country from
the map of Europe. But there might be other cases as well. Anyway, the
image map should be regarded as a secondary alternative, with a list of
links being the real thing, not vice versa.


Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a

"John F. Carr" <jf*@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
In article <c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:

[...]

4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
used. Simply put, avoid blinking.


How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?


Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than anyone
else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a device
whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library or
at an Internet cafe? How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content?


Support to OBJECT is still poor, including images as objects and the use
of the element's content as fallback. Besides, in situations where client
side image maps would make sense, it would probably still be best to have
both the image map and the list of links as normal content. This would
let the user decide which interface he finds more comfortable. For
example, if the image contains a map of a country, with major cities as
active areas, many people who normally prefer graphic browsing and use
the mouse might wish to select a city from a list of links, since that's
easier than hitting a small circle with a mouse.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
In article <c7************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

"John F. Carr" <jf*@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
In article <c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
>
>[...]
>
>4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
>used. Simply put, avoid blinking.
How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?


Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than anyone
else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a device
whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library or
at an Internet cafe?


Because they know that the web is full of content that is harmful to
them and they need to take special precautions.

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?


A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.
--
John Carr (jf*@mit.edu)
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
In article <40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?


A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
In article Kris wrote:
In article <40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?


A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?


Bogosity alert. It's about 100% sure that there is nothing that makes
sence on animated link.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a

"John F. Carr" <jf*@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
In article <c7************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

"John F. Carr" <jf*@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
In article <c6************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
>
>[...]
>
>4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are >used. Simply put, avoid blinking.

How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?
Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than anyoneelse? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a devicewhose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library orat an Internet cafe?


Because they know that the web is full of content that is harmful to
them and they need to take special precautions.


In other words, it's more important to feed your compulsion to use blinking
and flashing (which serve no necessary function AND which annoy many, if not
most, people) than to help assure the safety of the browsing experience for
other people wherever they go. Nice.
How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?
A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,


You're a real prince.
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
In article <kr*****************************@news1.news.xs4all .nl>,
Kris <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote:
In article <40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>How few of them does there have to be, before it
>becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?


A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?


The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
loading.)

--
John Carr (jf*@mit.edu)
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
John F. Carr wrote:
Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
How few of them does there have to be, before it becomes acceptable
to trigger seizures?


A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored


I do hope you are joking.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31
What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content?


Support to OBJECT is still poor


Maybe in some case CSS can be an answer. An exemple here :
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/

But of course, it's usable only for simple image maps - complex ones can't
be recoded using this technique.

Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a

"John F. Carr" <jf*@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
In article <kr*****************************@news1.news.xs4all .nl>,
Kris <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote:
In article <40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>How few of them does there have to be, before it
>becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?


The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value."


Laura's point may have been to ask what need there is on the part of the
general public for web sites to have flashing bits, that it would outweigh
the accessibility-related reasons not to.

Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
CJM

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1f********************************@4ax.com...

Jukka Korpela mentioned a few months ago that the EU doesn't have
requirements for accessibility, only recommendations. Sorry, I don't
know where to find them.


AFAIK, the EU does not have any standards or even recommendations. [The EU
issues directives that member nations should/must incorporate into their
laws]

Recent changes made to the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) means
that web accessibility is now *implicitly* covered. When I say implicitly, I
mean there are no guidelines to indicate what determines whether a website
is accessible or not - the law says that businesses are expectly to
undertake 'reasonable steps' to provide access to employment & services to
people with disabilities... such are providing an accessible website, or
providing screen readers and other appropriate tools. However, these
requirements have not yet been tested in the courts, ie have not been
enforced. I think there are a case or two working their way to the courts
soon, but nothing has happened yet.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups....hcsp#P16_2626

Chris
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
In article <40*********************@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
jf*@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?


The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
loading.)


You missed the point.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
In message <c7***********@ID-209813.news.uni-berlin.de>, CJM
<cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> writes

Recent changes made to the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) means
that web accessibility is now *implicitly* covered. When I say implicitly, I
mean there are no guidelines to indicate what determines whether a website
is accessible or not - the law says that businesses are expectly to
undertake 'reasonable steps' to provide access to employment & services to
people with disabilities... such are providing an accessible website, or
providing screen readers and other appropriate tools. However, these
requirements have not yet been tested in the courts, ie have not been
enforced. I think there are a case or two working their way to the courts
soon, but nothing has happened yet.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups...icWebsite/publ
ic_rnib003060.hcsp#P16_2626

Until there is a legal precedent, general legal opinion is that WAI
level 1 is at least the level that UK sites need to aim for.

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, website design, stop spam and more!
Jul 20 '05 #41

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.