Paul,
I think you make some interesting points. And, in fact, it was basically
these points that lead to the development of CSS for web page design. Like
any tool, CSS can be used to make accessible pages, or inaccessible pages,
but it does give you the ability to have visually flashy pages that are
completely accessible.
You can use CSS to create pages with columns, for example. You can get
effects that look just like what you might get with a table layout. The
difference is that CSS "degrades gracefully." That is, for the person who
has old hardware, or who uses assistive technology to read web pages, the
page can turn into a plain vanilla web page!
The trick is to use standard HTML to put the content on the page in a
logical fashion, then to use CSS to position the text, apply visual effects,
and what not. Then, the sighted person will be able to see all the
eye-candy you want, and the user who depends on AT to access pages (or the
PDA browser, or the voice browser) can have access to the page as well.
The only weakness is that you can't guarantee what your page will look like
to the viewer. But you can't do that now. You just use an all or nothing
design. If designers don't use CSS, and demand CSS tools, then browsers
won't be forced to fully support it. But IE, for example, does a very good
job now, and Netscape is making progress.
Denis Anson
Computer Access Expert
College Misericordia
-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Chapin
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Web Access; When the Rubber Meets the Road
> Seems like you're saying that visual effects are more important than
> the information being communicated, and that you want to have visually
> attractive pages at the expense of those pages being accessible to
> all.
>
Not quite what I'm saying. Let's ignore the fact that better visual
presentation makes a page nicer to look at for the sighted reader, or that
many graphic designers use design to emphasize content, or that sighted
users use visual clues to select and process information on a page faster.
There are practical effects that any graphic designer is well aware.
For example, large blocks of text are inherently unpleasant and difficult to
read. Wide blocks are especially difficult. The simple graphic solution is
to divide the page into columns so individual lines are of limited width.
This significantly improves the readability of the text to the sighted user
and is why newspapers and magazines have been using columns for decades.
But the accessibility of column text like this is highly problematic with
low end software.
I'm fully willing to argue that sighted users may have to give up some of
the whiz-bang visuals in order to make pages accessible. While at this
point this group probably considers me a troglodyte, around here I'm thought
of as that annoying person who keeps pointing out accessibility problems.
What I am arguing is that we should not make the process of creating
accessible resources any harder than necessary, or require non-disabled
users to give up anything unless it's really necessary. The goal here is
equal access to information by making access easier for the disabled, not by
making it harder for the non-disabled.
> I also hear you complaining about people who refuse to upgrade their
> software, making accessibility by non graphical and non-java browsers
> necessary. You seem to be saying that people refuse to upgrade their
> software as opposed to are not able to upgrade their software.
>
I am saying that. Remember that this whole thread was based on the premise
that good software would be made available at little or not cost. The cost
logically should be borne by the web sites since, by making it easier to
create accessible pages, they benefit directly from the upgrades.
Practically, it would probably have to come out of either the government,
universities or the open source movement.
> Paul, people do not upgrade mainly because of the cost factor. Also,
> it is difficult to learn new software, and people feel comfortable
> with what they have.
I don't consider that a reasonable objection. Most people feel comfortable
creating inaccessible web pages. Would you are argue that they should
continue to do so? I think it behooves both sides to put some effort into
this.
Laura raises some interesting questions. One of the most important, which I
mentioned in the original post, is whether, given the variety of
disabilities that we are dealing with, it is possible to create a software
package or packages that can take web pages involving some of the more
sophisticated features available to designers and make them accessible to
all possible users. This is a critical question since even if there is a
software solution that works with most of the disabled, it wouldn't be
acceptable if it resulted in web pages that omitted others. The principle of
the lowest common denominator still applies; the goal is to raise the
denominator. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. Let's take
JavaScript for an example. Can anybody come up with a case where a
sufficiently intelligent piece of software would not be able to deal with a
JavaScript and convert it into something useful?
And a final comment on PDAs and handhelds. As you may guess, I'm not a fan.
They have some uses, but until the price gets to something below fifty
dollars (and the 800 dollar price was from the article, not me) I'll stick
with my pocket pad and pen. The interesting question is whether most web
pages are really appropriate for minimal displays. Ironically, the visually
impaired are probably in a better position for dealing with PDAs that the
sighted since they're use to processing web pages linearly. Personally, I
wouldn't go to most web pages if I had to run the output through a PDA
simply because the data flow is too slow. If I want movie times, it might
make sense. If I'm checking out college web site to see if I want to go
there, no.
------
Paul Chapin
Curricular Computing Specialist
Amherst College
413 542-2144
|
