I totally agree with you Bill, but I think there's another issue to add
to your list, and that's that there truly are inaccessible web sites out
there. I consider myself a pretty savvy computer user, but with
CAPTIA's, flash, ..., I've run into more than just a few inaccessible
web sites.
Sun Sounds of Arizona wrote:
> I believe there are two different issues here.
>
> First, the age or version of the access technology being employed. Many
> blind computer users do not have the resources to keep up with the latest
> wiz bang versions of JAWS or Window Eyes. I personally know people who are
> still using versions of JAWS as old as version 6.0 and version 4.5. I even
> know of people still employing Windows 98 with its attendant software now a
> full ten years out of date. Some of the early blind friendly browsers are no
> longer being maintained and so fall ever further behind as web technology
> moves ahead. This is mostly an economic issue and the only way web
> developers can deal with this is to maintain true backward compatibility.
> It can be done, I've seen it, but few are willing to make the effort.
>
> Second: As another list member mentioned, some blind people just have more
> trouble than others. Those of us who are more tech savvy, (read geeky),
> tend to judge harshly those who just don't seem to get it. WE assume they
> just don't try, and we assume they could do it if they weren't so lazy.
> This is inherently an elitist attitude. I'm sure it is true in some cases
> that a person doesn't attempt to help themselves. However, in my
> experience, it is far more common that many people just have trouble. I
> mean if one is really objective on the subject, adapted computers accessing
> and parsing data which is almost always designed for maximum visual
> usability, is not simple. In fact computers are complex and cranky and
> stump sighted people just as often. The difference here is a blind person
> is using an additional layer of technology, the screen reader, which just
> makes it even more complex. Especially when family, friends, or IT.
> professionals, rarely understand screen reading software well enough to
> really be of much help. Now, before all you other geeks, just like me, jump
> all over me for being a soft touch, let me ask you: How many of you are good
> dancers or good athletes? How many of you can play musical instruments at a
> performance level? How many of you are wonderful cooks? The fact is, we
> all have our abilities, and those things for which, no matter how hard we
> try, we will only be barely getting by. I can't cook to save my life,
> (exaggeration of course), but I'm great with a computer. My wife is lucky
> if she can walk a straight line without injury, and so she is aclutz, but no
> one accuses her of being lazy or "her own worst enemy." So, she'll never
> be a ball player, but she can cook me into the dirt.
>
> So I suggest that instead of just writing off our fellow blind friends as
> stupid, incompetent, or lazy, we instead be grateful that some of us are
> really good at this computer and web stuff, and keep finding ways to make it
> simpler for our less skilled friends.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Rossi
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] inaccessible websites
>
> Are there metrics for what makes a site quote accessible quote? I know that
> the w3c has guidelines, but who gets to say if a site is accessible or not.
>
> I found it surprising when SouthWest got sued because just a couple of weeks
> before the announcement of the suit came out, I had purchased tickets on
> their site.
>
> Over on another list, I am trying to help someone out who feels that the
> audible.com site is very inaccessible, yet there are many blind people who
> use that site regularly with no, or minimal issues.
>
> If one blind person can use a site, does that mean it is accessible? If one
> blind person cannot use a site, does that mean it is inaccessible?
>
> Obviously, it isn't one of those extremes, so how do you measure
> accessibility and who gets to make the final call?
>
> I am honestly not trying to be provocative, I am trying to find a real
> answer, because I am often asked this question and I don't have an answer.
> The confusion seems to come from the fact that you can build a site that
> adheres pretty closely to the WAI guidelines, and still have a site that
> some blind people will have trouble with. Conversely, it is pretty easy to
> build a site that fails a lot of the tests for accessibility, but is not
> actually inaccessible.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> --
> Blue skies.
> Dan Rossi
> Carnegie Mellon University.
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: (412) 268-9081
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
> Signoff: [log in to unmask]
> Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
> Signoff: [log in to unmask]
> Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
>
>
--
Christopher
[log in to unmask]
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
