Advanced Web Technologies and Accessibility Concerns

[Vladdy]

I would like to invite Charles and everyone else to a discussion about using advanced web technology and accessibility guidelines.
It is my impression that almost every time there is a question about Javascript, Charles makes a post which in one way or the other states: "Web page should not rely on Javascript, since it makes it inaccessible to those who do not use Javascript enabled browsers...". I say that such statements are very one sided and may drive less knowledgeable members of this forum away from the benefits offered by Javascript and other web technologies that may not be universally accessible.

The law in USA does require certain entities to provide “effective communication with individuals with disabilities” and web sites, as a means of communication do fall under this law. What I disagree with is applying this law to every individual web page.

A given web page is only a method of presenting information. The carrier of information is the entity the web site belongs to. While such entity may be required to effectively communicate this information to people with disabilities, it DOES NOT mean it should be accomplished through the SAME web page.

When working on advanced web sites, more often than not it is easier to provide alternative content presentation for those who need it, rather than making the same page accessible to everyone. For example, I may have an online store site that uses Javascript for catalog navigation. This page does not contain information – it is just a tool to access it. All this page needs is a:
<link title=”Please follow this link to a text based product catalog if your browser does not support Javascript, or you are using screen reader or similar tool” href=”textversion.html”>
where textversion.html is a text-only file that contains product catalog.

Just like there are stairs and there is a ramp that provide access to a public place, different web pages can be used to provide access to the same information.

There is no need to sacrifice features and functionality of a web site for those who are able in order to accommodate those who are not.

[MikeOS]

Yes Charles is a bit big on this Javascript stuff, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. What he means is that if you use it you should test it first and ensure an alternative is available for all those who have switched it off, or those who use browsers that don't support it. Javascript is the most popular client side scripting language out there so you shouldn't be put off using it. It is excellent in the right hands (like no doubt in the hands of Charles). It has a bad rep due to things like pop up windows, and those stupid things that follow your mouse around, but it is excellent for validation and stuff. Also most developers seem to forget the <noscript> tag, for what reason I don't know, but for every script you write you should always include a <noscript> tag.

[PeOfEo]

I agree that disabilities should not deture users from suing advanced technologies but it is common courtosy to make a back up page for people that cannot support the main page, So if you use a lot of java cript dhtml css and maybe some flash... make a back up page out of common decency. Because what if you were disabled? Law or no law its just what should be done but I dont think it should deure you from suing the advanced scripts.

[Charles]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
[I]t is common courtosy to make a back up page for people that cannot support the main page, So if you use a lot of java cript dhtml css and maybe some flash... make a back up page out of common decency. That's the hard way to do things. And I think that you misunderstand what an accessible page is. Consider a person with a cognitive disability who relies upon images and other visual cues but who disables scripting for some reason. Perhaps things moving on the screen are confusing or perhaps he or she hasn't the use of his or her hands and is not using a mouse. The web author trying to target different pages to different browsers would have to study what all the different needs are, make some decisions about whose disabilities are suitably worthy and then crank out any number of different pages.

The better and easier way is to start with a text only page with its content marked up in HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.1 and then to add all of the bells, whistles and even the fuzzy dice. Just make sure that everything has an alternative on the same page. If you are using DHTML menus then simply make sure that each root item appears in the HTML as a link to a page of those other links. The NOFRAME and NOSCRIPT elements are not there so that web authors can provide an insulting message. They're there so that web authors can provide links. And the "alt" attribute is there for a reason. Look at your page in Lynx if you are sighted. More often than not alt="" is better than alt="Logo".

A web author would have to be fairly incompetent not to be able to follow the few simple rules listed at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html. And if that's too complicated then: Images & animations: Use the alt attribute to describe the function of each visual.
Image maps. Use the client-side map and text for hotspots.
Multimedia. Provide captioning and transcripts of audio, and descriptions of video.
Hypertext links. Use text that makes sense when read out of context. For example, avoid "click here."
Page organization. Use headings, lists, and consistent structure. Use CSS for layout and style where possible.
Graphs & charts. Summarize or use the longdesc attribute.
Scripts, applets, & plug-ins. Provide alternative content in case active features are inaccessible or unsupported.
Frames. Use the noframes element and meaningful titles.
Tables. Make line-by-line reading sensible. Summarize.
Check your work. Validate. Use tools, checklist, and guidelines at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG

[PeOfEo]

well one way you can do it is with java script. You say if browser is ie or ns then responce redirect or whatever to the main site and if the browser cannot read java script you are alredy on the disablities page which you made as your index.

[Charles]

Why wouldn't you just make one page that works on all browsers?

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by Charles
Why wouldn't you just make one page that works on all browsers?
You can do it when making a static page.
It is not always feasible, when you create dynamic, interactive page that relies on server and client side scripting.

[Charles]

Originally posted by Vladdy
It is not always feasible, when you create dynamic, interactive page that relies on server and client side scripting. Well yes, if your page relies on client side scripting then your page will necessarily be inaccessible to great numbers of people. That's why one of the rules reads "Provide alternative content in case active features are inaccessible or unsupported." And it's always possible, feasible and often quite simple to do that.

[PeOfEo]

That's why one of the rules reads "Provide alternative content in case active features are inaccessible or unsupported." And it's always possible, feasible and often quite simple to do that.
Thats why I say make a static page for older browser as your index and then if the user supports java script, or asp or something, immediatly redirect the user to the dynamic page which his browser can support, whereas the person who has the old browser or has a disability is at the page designed for his or her needs

[Vladdy]

The point I'm making, Charles, is that alternative delivery of the content does not have to be on the SAME page. While it is possible to degrade a page with simple client-side scripts like menus and rollovers, it is not with advanced interactive features.

[Charles]

Then you will need to post large and clear the proper address for linking. If you feel the need for two separate versions then put them in the same file with the script free version in the script dependent version's NOSCRIPT element.

[PeOfEo]

Ok my opinion on this is there are so few users with disabilities that it should not affect your making of an advanced page, but you should still have a back up for them because its just common decency.

[Vladdy]

Charles, did you bother to read my initial post?
Originally posted by Vladdy
...I may have an online store site that uses Javascript for catalog navigation. This page does not contain information – it is just a tool to access it. All this page needs is a:
<link title=”Please follow this link to a text based product catalog if your browser does not support Javascript, or you are using screen reader or similar tool” href=”textversion.html”>
where textversion.html is a text-only file that contains product catalog...
You can not assume that ALL people with disabilities have the Javascript disabled hence <link> element is a better place to show the way to alternate content presentation than the <noscript>. Once again, with advanced pages it is easier to have a separate page, since you can leave out not only the script related features, but also extra layout elements and graphics, thus making presentation BETTER for those reading pure text as they would not have to read through all the alt tags and such.

[Charles]

Originally posted by Vladdy
You can not assume that ALL people with disabilities have the Javascript disabledAnd that is precisely why your approach is a bad one. You will need one page with images and JavaScript, one with no images and JavaScript, one with images and no JavaScript and one with no images and no JavaScript. It's far better to design your page so that it's fine with or without any or all of the non-text features. It's also really easy. What's the big deal about providing an alternative way to navigate if you are using DHTML menus? And you have three ways to choose from: making the root links real, using the NOSCRIPT element and providing redundant links along the bottom of the page. Or consider links that open in a new window. Do you really think that it's better to write a second page just so that you can use <a href="javascript:window.open('http://www.w3.org/')"> instead of <a href="http://www.w3.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href); return false">?Originally posted by Vladdy
Once again, with advanced pages it is easier to have a separate page, since you can leave out not only the script related features, but also extra layout elements and graphics, thus making presentation BETTER for those reading pure text as they would not have to read through all the alt tags and such.If you are following the rules then your layout elements are all sitting in separate, external CSS files that will only be downloaded when they are of use. It is clear that you really do not understand what an accessible page is. It is that second page that you want to write, but then all of the other stuff is added. If some browser cannot display or work with any of that added stuff then things are just fine. And if your text only users have to read through irrelevant "alt" texts then you are mis-using the "alt" attribute. It's there to provide the text that should be displayed instead of the image should that be necessary. Where it is better to have no text displayed you are instructed by the specifications to use alt="".

[Robert Wellock]

Basically using XHTML 1.1 is probably one of the best solutions along with careful thought to semantic structure and application of CSS, usability and accessibility are different terms.

Many people talk about accessibility; however I would consider myself as having a disability although I can read perfectly, I am not colour-blind, I am fully mobile and can use the mouse and keyboard and my hearing is good, and flashing images don't affect me.

I won't bother telling you which disability I have; although approximately one in ten people are affected by this specific disability but you hear very little about support for it via web accessibility statements.

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by Charles
And that is precisely why your approach is a bad one. You will need one page with images and JavaScript, one with no images and JavaScript, one with images and no JavaScript and one with no images and no JavaScript.
No I won't. Two pages are enough. There is one page that has all the bells and whistles that make it attractive and easy to use for the ~90% of visitors and the other one that has only content which is served for everyone else, regardless if they are disabled, ignorant (do not know how to upgrade their browser), stubborn (insist on using NS4.* or Opera) or are away from their PCs (use PDA, WebTV, or similar tools).
Originally posted by Charles

It's far better to design your page so that it's fine with or without any or all of the non-text features. It's also really easy. What's the big deal about providing an alternative way to navigate if you are using DHTML menus?
It all depends on the particular design. You seem to equate the use of javascript to menus and other "eye-candy" scripts. In this case I agree the page can and should be designed so that it workes with or without them.
However, when script is integral part of the page design it can be easier to provide an alternative page. Say I have a javasript based chat on my page or interactive tree browsing (server data is requested when a branch is expanded) or dynamic form.
While the intention of making web page accessible to everyone is certainly noble, the bottom line is that it is incrementally harder to keep visitor's attention with static design. As web sites move to dynamic and interactive content presentation, it may become easier to have alternative pages.
The choice would be made using a which way is cheaper criterion, as like it or not, making page universally accessible is a burden that does not produce return on investment, so most sites will do the minimum to lawfully get by.

[Stefan]

Originally posted by Vladdy
[B]
It all depends on the particular design... However, when script is integral part of the page design it can be easier to provide an alternative page.


Yes, obviously sometimes 2 pages can be a better choise then 1.
However the beginner misstake is very rarely that you have a database driven advanced site which you are needlessy trying to implement as a 1 page solution.

However it is very common to see beginners (or professionals with little to no awareness of accessibility issues) to over complicate their pages with scripts and extras without reflecting of what happens when the techniques they are using is not available on the client end.

Quite often a well implemented 1 page layout can be made to work very well with the same or less ammount of work input and will very likely to also be easier to keep fresh and updated relative 2(+) pages.

Thus in general I feel one should really think through if can't implement a "onepage" solution before you decieds to do a "multi page" solution.


it is incrementally harder to keep visitor's attention with static design.


That of cource depends to a very high degree on the content of the site you create.
On eg reference litterature pages static designs would almost always be the far superior implementation. Eg what extras not possible with plain HTML & CSS would make www.w3.org a better site for it's purpose?

On the other end of the spectrum we have eg a kids gaming site with javagames.

In the end there will always be a grey area, but as I said before the tendency by far is usually to "overdo extras with bad or no backup" then the opposite.

[jeanne]

More a question -- why not javascript? (Am I right in assuming to leave out images and javascript that the problem is blindness? So the monitors blind people have that read to them can't read the javascript stuff? I never thought of that........................ how do they read? How are forms usually interpreted, and why would javascript affect that more than regular html links etc?

Could you put "alt" somehow on significantly inaccessible javascript . . . something? I don't understand why it wouldn't work as well or badly as html anyway....... obviously ..... or why xml (I know almost nothing about xml) stuff that comes up into a table would work better than javascript that writes itself into a table, say, as it goes.......

However, if it doesn't work, it's important to know that.. Hmm.

[Robert Wellock]

JavaScript has nothing to do with blindness (although it might be hard for a blind user to see a popup, etc.) and if you use JavaScript use <noscript> if you need alternative information to be conveyed.

Forms would be interpreted similar to 'something Edit:' 'something Edit:' in a speech enabled browser.

Turn JavaScript off and surf this site section: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/ then surf it again with JavaScript enabled and note the difference, especially for the contact pages.

This is a good link: http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Also if you want to visit one of my friends sites on practical applications that cover accessibility visit Ian: http://www.accessify.com/

[jeanne]

Will try these explorations. Gosh, I thought I had it covered when I got in the habit of "alt"s for my pictures!

But I'm maintaining a -- well honestly I haven't figured it out, I'm throwing lots of browsers to my "oldstylestie" which has no javascript and no css and therefore the dread underlinked links, and low-res pics . . . and I had a link I haven't repeated to go to a non-javascript site. Determining browser, jaa, css, bandwidth (and on aol I'm sometimes getting kicked to "oldstylesite" despite my mighty 115 bps usual connection speed on a 56 K modem -- aol trick) . . . it tends to be overwhelming.


Anyway, I should certainly play a bit more before completing the redesign of oldstyle/regular sites this time.............

Thanks for the info!