JeffCroft.com

08.24.2006 // 55 Comments // Aldrich Ct. Townhome Accessibility follow-up

Comments

1. 001 // Árni Gunnar // 08.25.2006 // 3:09 AM

   You get an A+ in my book. I am sooo often burdened with deadlines at work that I just can’t get out of, and I just have to compromise ALL the time.

   As you said, it is most often a question of time and money. I often say to my clients that anything and everything is possible, it is just going to cost a whole bunch of cash to implement everything …. and the same principle applies to accessibility.

2. 002 // Pete Crosier // 08.25.2006 // 6:44 AM

   Jeff, I think your sixth point pretty much brings it home for me. I experience various problems which vary from machine to machine - and though these are more comfort-centric the point is valid for actual nuts n’ bolts accessibility too. These aren’t problems specific to me browsing website X, these are problems that manifest themself across the system - like you say, there’s a whole heap of stuff that tool makers should be doing to make my life easier. Not to say designers and developers don’t have a responsibility, sometimes even a legal one, but we’re only a piece in the accessibility puzzle.

   I wear glasses when my brain starts to hurt and, reading your posts, I thought I’d see what my OS can do with regards to maybe inverting the screen for a while to give me a break. I clicked ‘Apply’ and it promptly killed my spreadsheets, brought up an error, made my desktop background grey and resized my scrollbars to be 2 inches wide. Think I’ll just stick twiddling the contrast and brightness on the monitor ; )

3. 003 // roberthahn // 08.25.2006 // 8:54 AM

   I think there’s another important facet to the slippery slope issue (point 5). Let me tell you a short story to illustrate my point before I make it.

   I finally decided to skim Roger’s post to see what he said, and after reading it through (and maybe half the comments), it occured to me that a CSS file is just text - it shouldn’t be hard to write a script that processes CSS and emits light-on-dark versions or zoomable versions on demand. So: there! you can now offer these alternatives to anyone - finish the site the way you want to, run the script, and presto! Instant help for the comfort seekers! No significant time was added to your project! The world is a better place!

   Something’s bugging you about this story right? And if it’s not bugging you, it should.
   

   Just because these problems can be solved, even ‘perfectly’, on the web level doesn’t mean they should. Especially if the solution puts the cost in the wrong place. If the OS/Browser developers provided accessibility features, it would cost them time, and it would cost us time to wait for them, but it’s a cost that’s only incurred once. But then, each and every designer/developer doesn’t have to incur that cost in each and every site. As long as we have people, with the best of intentions, and I know they just want to help, try to solve this in the web layer, then we’re providing OS/Browser developers a disincentive to fix things properly.

   So if I had to make a request, it would be: to the OS/Browser devs, please prioritize accessibility in your next releases, because that will save us time and money, AND it will make those who need the features much much happier.

4. 004 // Nate K // 08.25.2006 // 9:16 AM

   Jeff, Well said! I enjoy Roger’s writing as well, he’s at the top of my list when it comes to credible sources. I have referenced his website on many different occasions, but I do agree that this one was a personal preference for him.

   Personally, there are many things I would like to change about a few sites I work on - but due to budget constraints and my schedule (time is money), I am unable to get to all of them (right now). I will work to make these improvements as we get time, but the pressing issues revolve around working on things that will give us more of a ROI. Not that accessiblity WOULDN’T do that - but it’s seen as a smaller profit (for lack of better explanation).

   Also, as with you, the Opera Zoom feature is great! Having everything zoomed is much better than just the text - and for those sites that like to embed everything in images (though I dont suggest this is as a proper practice), this will help with accessibility.

   I thought BOTH of your posts were well said - even though I was initially inclined to read because the post title seemed controversial.

5. 005 // Mike Cherim // 08.25.2006 // 10:40 AM

   Well put, Jeff. Only once have I had a client ask me to make them an “accessible” site. They don’t even think along such lines I’d venture to say. But they all want something that looks great and that’s usable to their perceived target audience. That’s were I step in and try to enlighten them; and I don’t just talk to them about meeting the needs of less capable visitors. Enhanced SEO is often the ticket they buy. Hopefully I can justify additional fees as it makes for additional work to marry beauty with accessibility with usability, this is a given. But if they don’t or aren’t willing, I do it anyway. It’s what I do and how I have to work. If I do a good job with my sales pitch then I can get the client to actually pay for some of this… otherwise it’s on me. Not very practical, perhaps, but I have to work the way I do (and of course some of it is built right into the original bid, anyway).

   You mentioned that people with disabilities “get it” and I think you’re right. My experience with this is personal because many, many years ago, on the early Internet, I used to watch my quadriplegic cousin enjoy the web with sheer glee. She used a rubber-tipped pointer held with her teeth and couldn’t get enough of it. She never complained about anything and was simply delighted with the then new medium which allowed her to get out and about in a way she hadn’t previously experienced.

   She wouldn’t be one of those who would complain. She was one of those who was thankful for we she had, not what she didn’t.

6. 006 // Reinmar Müller // 08.25.2006 // 10:44 AM

   Don’t waste a millisecond on people who insult you personally the way you described. Granted, there are too many web designers/developers who really don’t care about accessibility at all, and that’s disguistingly unprofessional. But one should make an effort of actually looking into someone’s work—and thereby differentiating between those who just don’t care and those who’ve had to make practical compromises they wish they wouldn’t have had to make—before throwing bad language at them. It’s plain lame to simply assume that someone’s an uncaring bastard because it fits so nicely into your religious warfare attitude (as so often, this can be applied to other areas of life, too).

   I wonder how anyone who’s ever done a piece of real-world work of reasonable complexity can be so absolutely judgemental and zealous. I often get the impression that those with the biggest “bleeding hearts” just oozing with righteous blood and making the most noise are the ones who’ve yet to add deadline and pragmatism to their personal vocabulary. Even Mr. Zeldman caught a lot of babbling flak from said circles when he suggested doing (well thought out) hybrid table-based/CSS designs when under certain constraints a few years ago.

   On the responsibility of helping end users utilise existing tools or features to enhance their experience / cope with accessibility issues, I agree that it shouldn’t be ours. Nevertheless, I often point them to resources where they can educate themselves; basic things like text-resizing in IE or how to turn on Clear Type (“wow, didn’t even know that existed!”) are just small yet common examples.

7. 007 // Bob Roberts // 08.25.2006 // 2:07 PM

   Access for people with disabilities in websites is a civil right covered in the Americans with Disabilities Act, an amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is important to first view access as a civil right to understand the premise that artistic license can be dictated or modified by legislation.
   

   In the last century the question was raised ‘Why should a woman be given the same opportunities as a man in employment?’ and ‘Why should a minority be given the same opportunities in education as a non-minority?’ Of course, today we know without prompting the answer to these is that both women and minorities have inherited civil rights; to bring about the protection of their civil rights, legislation was needed.
   

   Complying with the civil rights laws guaranteeing equal access to people with disabilities is just the standard that webpage designers must live by.

8. 008 // Jeff Croft // 08.25.2006 // 2:18 PM

   Access for people with disabilities in websites is a civil right covered in the Americans with Disabilities Act, an amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is important to first view access as a civil right to understand the premise that artistic license can be dictated or modified by legislation.

   That’s access for people with disabilities. That’s not the same as “you will provide the exact same experience for people with disabilities as those without and you will accommodate personal preferences, as well.”

   Obviously I believe that access for people with disabilities is important, and I’ve said so over and over again. I just also believe that providing them the exact same experience without assertive technology and accommodating personal preferences such as someone favoring dark-on-light text over reversed out text is impractical.

   Complying with the civil rights laws guaranteeing equal access to people with disabilities is just the standard that webpage designers must live by.

   Which laws do you think people are breaking? Which sites are breaking them? Who are you talking to here, exactly? Are you suggesting that I am breaking the law? Or just speaking generally?

9. 009 // bob roberts // 08.25.2006 // 3:41 PM

   First off, I am not your enemy and I hope I have not offended you. I appreciate the discussion. Unlike a ramp on a new building, access to a new webpage is not as cut and dry and I appreciate that. Sometimes fully complying to the letter of the law will make a webpage completely inaccessible.

   But you asked what law is a webpage held to.

   Source: http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/proceedings/324.htm

   Title I of the ADA, governing the employment of persons with disabilities by private employers, mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations to covered employees if doing so does not create an undue burden. Providing accessible technology, information in alternative formats, and web accessibility are examples of types of reasonable accommodations that may be required. Title I regulations, issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are found at 29 C.F.R. 1630 et seq. (See JAN website listed above for full text)

   Title II of the ADA governs state and local government entities. In addition to a basic non-discrimination mandate, this section requires that the programs, services and activities of these entities be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. There is also an express obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services to effectively communicate with persons who cannot see visually delivered information or cannot hear aurally delivered information. As government entities provide increasing amounts of information on the Internet, web accessibility of public information becomes a matter of increasing concern. Title II regulations, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, are found at 28 C.F.R. Part 35, sections 35.101 et seq.

   It is like building codes ‘“ they exist so we comply.

10. 010 // dave nold // 08.25.2006 // 3:48 PM

    I can’t help but point out that the markup in the three “award-winning standards-based sites” that you mention in your About the Author section does not validate.

    If you use valid xhtml and css you’re more than half the way to an accessible site

    Please do not send me any more emails.

    Respond to this board only.

11. 011 // Jeff Croft // 08.25.2006 // 4:11 PM

    Dave-

    First, I did not write the (X)HTML for those sites. Second, your quotation marks imply that you don’t consider these to be ‘award-winning.” I’ll point out they’re some of the most respected sites in all of journalism, and they have won several prestigious awards. Third, who cares? How does you pointing out validation errors in these site help us discuss the matter of accessibility on the web today? Trolling this site will not be tolerated. If you do it again, you’ll be banned.

    Please go away.

12. 012 // James Bennett // 08.25.2006 // 5:05 PM

    Dave,

    You just violated the first and second rules of Accessibility Club, and arguably the fourth.

    And as someone who suffers from two different visual impairments, I have to say that with people like you allegedly on my side, I don’t need any enemies.

13. 013 // Jeff Croft // 08.25.2006 // 5:46 PM

    First off, I am not your enemy and I hope I have not offended you. I appreciate the discussion

    Oh, you didn’t offend me at all. i was just trying to understand what your suggestion was — how does this law help us further our discussion of accessibility?

    Thanks for the law. But I’m still curious which sites are not complying. It seems to me that law only applies to employers and government sites. I don’t see anything in there that applies to me. Am I missing something?

14. 014 // dave nold // 08.25.2006 // 6:43 PM

    Jeff, The quotes mean that I was quoting your text. Nothing more.

    Who cares if the markup validates? Rhetorical question right?

    James, I nit picked jeff’s code because of his absurd over reaction to somthing I posted in another thread. Good luck with your club.

    But I have been pegged a Troll so I’ll take my leave.

15. 015 // Maz // 08.25.2006 // 6:50 PM

    Firstly, I commend you for being one of the very very few who evidently has the courage to walk on the eggshells and state a view that has long-since needed stating. It is a shame that there are some subjects which appear to evoke such emotion, albeit, in my view at least, unbalanced emotion, that they become undebatable.

    It is as ludicrous to suggest that if an author writes about the pitfalls of trying to follow accessibility standards to the nth degree then he or she must somehow be insensitive to the visually impaired or disabled, as it is to suggest that if an author states buying a blue two-door car over a red four-door car because of budget, requirement, garage size, etc, then he or she must be absolutely against red four door cars. It’s taking a reasoned choice and using it to support an argument in an unreasonable manner.

    It seems to me that the zealots have tasted the apple and now want the entire pie on the same day. Two years ago, hell, even one year ago, we, as designers, were nowhere near as aware of accessibility issues as we are today.That alone should indicate that progress is being made. Progress which will inevitably take time and may not ever be to any individual’s personal wishes in some cases.

    I also agree fully that it is very much a two-way street. There are free tools out there, as you rightly state, such as Opera which have various added tricks to assist the visually impaired for example. Why must the responsibility fall solely on the designer?

    Sadly, as my own experience has taught me, an over-zealous support of any technology or standard can actually have a very negative effect on the takeup of it. I am reminded of when I was learning CSS. It took me a while to understand its benefits and to accomodate it fully. Why? One of the key reasons was that I was absolutely and fully tired of almost feeling bullied into using it by those who could see no option but CSS for all designs, period. Designers, as I’m sure you may agree, are naturally creative people, who often work at their best when given a large canvas on which to work. When a customer starts limiting that canvas with text must look pixel perfect when resized, the links must have underlines, the colours must be high-contrast, etc, then the end result will inevitably not be as polished as it might otherwise have been. If it is to be then costs will rise. Nobody need be a mathematician to work that out. It’s simple business.

    Anyway, thanks for a great read, thanks for having the courage to write it, and thanks for helping this designer at least, to feel that he’s the only one who thinks the two-way street is looking rather lop-sided at present.

16. 016 // Kevin Hamm // 08.25.2006 // 6:53 PM

    I had too much to say in addition to all this, and it didn’t fit. So, Jeff, thanks for the shout-out, it’s one of two bright spots today. Thanks much!

17. 017 // Jeff Croft // 08.25.2006 // 6:57 PM

    Who cares if the markup validates? Rhetorical question right?

    I didn’t ask, nor did I mean “who cares if markup validates.” What I wondered is, how does the fact that these three sites don’t validate further our discussion? How does it relate? As far as I can tell, it doesn’t. That was my point.

    And, you didn’t nitpick my code. As I said, I didn’t write the (X)HTML for those sites.

    You were pegged a troll because you came here looking for a fight. You had no intention of discussing the matter of accessibility in a mature manner. You only came here to insult me and my work. That’s trolling by any definition.

    Thanks for leaving. I think I can speak for everyone when I say I appreciate it. Should you ever decide to discuss this matter rationally, please do return. I’ll be happy to grant you a clean slate and forget this ever happened.

18. 018 // Jeff Croft // 08.25.2006 // 7:04 PM

    @Maz: Thanks so much. Great comments, and well-written to boot.

19. 019 // Brent O'Connor // 08.25.2006 // 8:59 PM

    I think you raise some good points about accessibility. I think a lot of the accessibility issues can be and are handled at the OS and browser level. I think as long as the web developer understands and tries to address the common accessibility issues like adding the alt attribute to images that should be enough.

    I’m not severely color blind but I am color blind enough that when I come to a sight that has light green text on a dark green background (mostly MySpace sites) I have a hard time seeing the text. Do I throw a temper tantrum and take the time to email the web designer to tell them what a moron they are? No, I just select the text with my mouse and read it. Do I think the web designer is an idiot for using light green text on a dark green background, yes! But that is really a different matter.

20. 020 // Accessible Website Design 101 // 08.25.2006 // 10:54 PM

    Good designers, in my opinion, make an effort to make their sites more accessible to all visitors. Excellent designers continually strive to produce designs that are accessible and usable while all the time trying to push the boundaries of (at least their) design experience.

    Good client account handlers (ie not snake oilsmen) make clients aware of reasonable efforts to make their site more accessible.

    Let’s not forget it’s virtually impossible to create a site that everyone will be able to use. It’s just not practical.

    But that’s not to say we shouldnt at least all try and elimiate the basic accessibility problems many encounter (missing alt text, pages without titles, pages without reasonable contrast).

    And lets not forget, people with disabilities or impairments arent stupid. If a sites innaccessible, they’ll just find one that is. And then use that again…and again…and again.

21. 021 // Jeff Croft // 08.26.2006 // 1:04 AM

    Nice comments ‘Accessible Website Design 101.” I agree completely. :)

22. 022 // Susan Henderson // 08.26.2006 // 3:07 AM

    Interesting discussion. Jeff’s original essay was posted to a disability listserv so I thought I’d follow the links and I ended up here. Thank you for trying to clarify your position. In response to “It seems to me that law only applies to employers and government sites. I don’t see anything in there that applies to me. Am I missing something?” I’m going to assume that you’re asking whether the law applies to websites that you design for customers—public accommodations that provide goods or services—stores, or whatever. Sorry if this assumption is incorrect. I think this information could be helpful, anyhow. The US Dept of Justice issued an opinion, quite awhile ago, that the ADA does apply to Title III (public accommodations) websites. Check out http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt

    I’d also just like to add one more thing about a couple of comments. Sure, people with disabilities are used to doing a bit more to have access, but that’s because the built environment, including websites, has barriers. Just because we’re used to providing our own accommodations doesn’t mean we like it or would prefer that those barriers weren’t there. The comment by Mike about his cousin not complaining and being thankful for what she had, not what she didn’t is telling. Before the ADA, she was more likely not to be able to get out and about to enjoy the things that people who don’t use a wheelchair enjoy. Things people without disabilities take for granted. The purpose of the civil rights law, the ADA, is to ensure access for people with disabilities to the things everyone has access to: education, employment, public accommodations, public transportation, telecommunications. The ADA is there to make sure that I can get frustrated standing in line at a bank or shop at Amazon at 3:00 in the morning, too.

23. 023 // Jan Brašna // 08.26.2006 // 9:01 AM

    Reading this reminds me of something… I remember the discussions about screen readers of late very well - there is “no” issue with rich interweb apps and screen readers when talking about accessibility in general - what’s rotten are the obsolete screen readers themselves, incapable of using the proper semantics and DOM, instead of vague interpretation of the screen data only.

24. 024 // Jeff Croft // 08.26.2006 // 11:46 AM

    Susan (or anyone):

    Does the ADA say I have to provide alternate stylesheets with a zoom layout or stylesheets for those who prefer dark text on a light background?

    I don’t think it does. Please do not mistake what I’m talking about here, I’m not talking about basic, simple accessibility enhancements that every web designer I know has been doing since 1996 (like adding alt attributes to their images). I’m talking about the blurry gray area. I don’t believe the ADA covers these areas, but if it does, I’ve love to hear about it.

25. 025 // Susan // 08.26.2006 // 2:15 PM

    You had asked whether the ADA covered websites by private entities. Yes, it does. The ADA doesn’t dictate how you make a site accessible — that’s left to the creativity and skill of the designer—as it should be. Fortunately, your industry—web designers—have come together to figure these things out. You are fortunate that you’re working in such a community. Best of luck.

26. 026 // Matt Wilcox // 08.26.2006 // 5:50 PM

    I think that the people who are doing the majority of the finger pointing in the field of ‘accessible websites/design’ are the people who don’t actually understand what it is they are arguing about. As such, is it worth listening to those oppinions?

    If people with genuine needs were the ones doing the complaining I would be thinking very hard and seriously about the issue - but that isn’t the case. It looks more like people with a degree of techincal understanding, but a lack of experience in the field, are the ones doing the moaning. There’s an old addage “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.

    Do your best to ignor it Jeff, you know you’re doing the best you can for everyone, you know the deal with your clients and individual circumstances. No one else knows that sort of thing, and so no one else is in a position to ‘call the shots’ authoritativly.

    The reason your posts have seen a bit of trolling is that your site is a publicly available resource, and you’re discussing a topic that require a degree of specialist knowledge that the majority of developers/designers still don’t have. There’s no control over who gets to comment, so anyone who thinks they have a valid opinion (whether it is or it isn’t) gets to have their say. You’re arguing something that’s right on the edge of profesional experience, so it’s only to be expected that comparitvly few people will understand your points to a similar level. Try not to feel too bad about it, and please don’t stop - it’s been an interesting topic!

27. 027 // David // 08.27.2006 // 11:17 AM

    Wow Jeff, you are really heated up, admittedly i didnt read every comment in the 89 comment entry on the other post, so i wont make any commentary on why you seem to be so upset.

    My only comment is a bit trivial and after you read it, you can full well delete if it takes the conversation in another directio, but i wanted to point out that freelancers/self employed folks dont just work on rock band sites and eye-candy-laden site for a hip client.

    and i know you said generally speaking, but i wanted to clear that up, sure thats mostly what you will find inthe average freelancers portfolio, hell you’ll find it in mine to some extent, but in no way does this mean we do not understand how to work on content driven sites or understnad accessibility, which again i know you where not saying directly, but the implication was there.

    on another note, i agree with the sentiments of accessibility over personal preference. that has been something i have stuggled with for a while now is actually separating the two and making my clients understand the difference for those cleints that ‘have heard about alternate stylesheets’ and now wants that so they can laud accessibilty.

28. 028 // Jeff Croft // 08.27.2006 // 11:32 AM

    but i wanted to point out that freelancers/self employed folks dont just work on rock band sites and eye-candy-laden site for a hip client.

    That certainly wasn’t my implication. I was just trying to point out that the perspective I am coming at this from. I wanted it to be known that I work with content-heavy, general-purpose, mass media sites — not niche products with advertising as their primary goal. I made the note simply because I think there is a perception (not that I agree with it) that these niche sites that are supposed to be more eye-candy and less “beef” are allowed a certain degree of lenience when it comes to accessibility. I’m not saying it should be that way, I’m just saying it is. Site that are more experience than content (many of which make heavy use of Flash) are more likely to be less accessible. I just wanted to be clear that I was not referring to those types of sites when I speak of my experience.

    no way does this mean we do not understand how to work on content driven sites or understnad accessibility, which again i know you where not saying directly, but the implication was there.

    If I implied that you don’t understand accessibility, then I apologize. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that at all. Personally, i think you might have been a little too sensitive here.

    Thanks for your comments. I am definitely not out to offend anyone, and if I offended you, then I sincerely apologize.

29. 029 // Joe Dolson // 08.27.2006 // 12:18 PM

    Thanks for the follow-up, Jeff. I certainly apologize for my own part.

    As a designer, I certainly have projects in my portfolio that exhibit less than ideal accessibility. Why? Practicality. You’re absolutely right that business inevitably creates concerns which get in the way of accessibility, and until accessibility is legislated and enforced, this won’t change. (The Department of Justice’s opinions on ADA having little practical impact.)

    Accessibility and preference are two completely separate things. Reading a book gives some people headaches - does this entitle them to free audiobooks from the Library of Congress? No - this is not a disability.
    

    The continuum between “unable to access the information” and “inconvenient to access information” is complex. Some accessibility features will enable people to access who couldn’t otherwise, but others will simply make it easier for people who could do it already. Providing a dark on light stylesheet, in my opinion, falls quite a long ways into the “making it easier” category - and, as such, is a great benefit to provide but hardly critical to accessibility.

    Thanks, Jeff

30. 030 // Jeff Croft // 08.27.2006 // 1:47 PM

    Well said, joe. I absolutely agree with your comments 100%.

31. 031 // Caughtya // 08.27.2006 // 3:38 PM

    Jeff, thanks for this :) It presents your point of view in a much different light.

    There is a lot of emotional baggage in the accessibility discussion, and it’s hard to avoid. I make that point in the comments to a related posts, a discussion in which you took place, in case you haven’t read it, it is here: Joe Dolson’s thread.
    

    I hope you haven’t felt insulted by my comments to date, that is not the intent.

    As for the ADA covering websites, I have today learned something! I was under the impression that Title III did NOT cover the internet, based on a couple courtcases in the early 2000’s. This is good news, thanks Susan for giving use the link. I’ve been away from the US too long.
    

    Of course, the problem with Title III of the ADA is that it says “make it accessible”, it doens’ t say how. This is where relying on WCAG is a good idea. :) And WCAG doesn’t call for a zoom stylesheet per se. ;)

    My 2 cents.

32. 032 // Jeff Croft // 08.27.2006 // 4:04 PM

    Caughtya:

    I think you’re right about the natural tie of emotion to this discussion. It’s human nature to get emotional over something like this, and it’s hard to blame someone for it — especially if they (or someone they are close to) has been personally affected by the sometimes dismal state of accessibility online.

    But I still believe that until the emotion can be set aside long enough to have rational discussions, we won’t get very far in making things better. Until people stop being so set in their ways and try to understand the other side’s perspective, and until people stop being so binary about these things, I fear we won’t make a ton of progress. And, until people are willing to have a discussion without making it a personal matter (i.e. “Jeff Croft is insensitive because he said such and such about accessibility — he must hate handicapped people.”), some people (myself included) are simply going to be unwilling to engage in discussion.

    A lot of accessibility gurus claim they see it as a continuum, but don’t seem to actually believe it. To get upset because a site “isn’t accessible enough” is basically turning accessibility into a binary matter (the opposite of a continuum). It’s turning the matter into either “this is or isn’t good enough”, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as saying “this is or isn’t accessible.”

    The bottom line is that if we are going to make progress, people are going to need to be able to compromise. And in order to compromise, people are going to have to stop trying to win a debate and start trying to make things better for folks with disabilities. If people making web pages are just going to say “I shouldn’t have to do that” and accessibility gurus are just going to say “yes you should,” then we’ll never get anywhere.

    And I’m sure I’m biased, but from my perspective it seems that the web designers have been much more open to compromise than the accessibility camp. It feels like web designers are saying, “there are many things that are important to do for accessibility reasons, and we’re more than happy to do them — but some things are just impractical for us” and getting the response “that’s not good enough. Anything less than perfect won’t do.”

    The response should be, “great, that’s a good start — now let’s figure out what we can do to make those other things more practical.”

33. 033 // Brian W // 08.28.2006 // 8:43 AM

    This is, by its nature, an emotional and volatile issue. When I received my first screen reader and was able to obtain information faster than half a character at a time, it was an astounding experience. So “don’t mess with my screen reader” is a natural extension of that - or “don’t code in ways that make my screen reader choke.”

    Of course, those feelings don’t help much in the real world. As a blind web developer/tech writer I am not offended by your post. Accessibility is not about personal preference. And any decent browser lets a person attach their own style sheet or change many appearance settings, so at that level, people just need to take a little personal responsibility and stop expecting others to do it for them. I also hold the controversial opinion that users of assistive technologies should take the responsibility to master their tools. I can usually make it through sites that other blind people tell me are totally unusable.

    Some of the comments have seemed to imply that the disabled should be happy with what they have rather than complain about what they do not have, and I strongly disagree with that. Pushing for better access is natural, normal, and it’s a right. I sure will not stop. I will never thank anyone for second class citizenship.

    I think advocacy can be done in a civil and professional manner though.

    The “check list” accessibility enhancements (like alt text) are not the most important or time consuming. Adding Alt text is not a burden. It does help with search engine placement. (And if accessibility becomes the purvue of the browser/OS only, pages probably won’t load without it…)

    But Alt text does not help much if a site uses inaccessible scripting or applets for navigation. Forms nicely associated with label elements don’t do me much good if i cannot get to the form. Meaningful link text is of little value if the main tasks of a site cannot be completed by many users.

    At that point it’s about good business decisions. If a significant percentage of visitors to a site cannot complete the main tasks for which the site is designed, and go elsewhere, then the site fails in its purpose.

    What’s a “significant percentage?” What is your margin? What would you pay to increase your market share by 3%? 5%? How about 10%? That’s huge in any tight market!

    Accessibility is about good business. It’s about inclusiveness. It is about the customer and about welcoming more of them to your site. That will not happen if you make the disabled sit in the back of the bus. (But it is not my intent to imply that the author of the original post, or any of the commenters do this.)

    I fail to understand though why accessible design is seen as a burden rather than as an opportunity. Increase your margin. Grow your business. Welcome the disabled and their friends and families.

34. 034 // Jeff Croft // 08.28.2006 // 8:51 AM

    Well said, Brian. I agree with everything you’ve said, and it’s a good thing, because it’d be damn hard to argue with you, given your first-hand experience!

    Some of the comments have seemed to imply that the disabled should be happy with what they have rather than complain about what they do not have, and I strongly disagree with that.

    That definitely wasn’t my intent. I don’t believe you should ever settle for being a second class citizen, and I think those of us working in this industry should definitely always strive to make it such that you are not.

    If I made it sound otherwise, then I apologize.

35. 035 // Mike // 08.28.2006 // 9:29 AM

    Well stated. It’s true that web designers are held to a much higher standard for accessibility than other design professionals. And an unrealistic standard in my view.

36. 036 // kumar // 08.28.2006 // 11:42 AM

    I don’t know how else to say it…

    jc++;

37. 037 // Sean Sperte // 08.28.2006 // 6 PM

    I’ll admit that I skipped the comments on the previous post, and about half of them on this one — but I do think I got a good idea of the attitude you’ve gotten from this discussion, Jeff.

    Ahem! Could I see a show of hands, please, of those who honestly think Mr. Croft is arguing about denying access to websites he creates (or has a part in creating) to those with disabilities … Thank you. I now know who among us he was referring to in point seven.

    Just so you know, even though I agree with your opinion, I’m more proud that I actually understand what you’re saying.

38. 038 // Belinda // 08.29.2006 // 7:03 AM

    Thankfully someone finally confirms what I have been thinking for sometime. Well done. Alot of responsibility should be on the hardware makers, operating system makers, browser makers to all work together to one standard.

39. 039 // David // 08.30.2006 // 10:10 AM

    Thanks for your comments. I am definitely not out to offend anyone, and if I offended you, then I sincerely apologize.

    no, no, no, no offense taken at all, more tongue in cheek than anything. thats the problem with the written word, emotions dont fair well!

40. 040 // meth // 08.30.2006 // 5:22 PM

    Being a designer is about making more compromises than many people would find sane. Consistent viewing in multiple browsers with various degrees of standards compliance. Users that don’t understand the basic tool they use, their own browser. Accessibility tools that have issues. A growing abundance of new technology to keep up with. We try to balance them all as we move forward.

    There is a lot of grey out there. Example does Freedom Scientific have an accessible web site? http://www.freedomscientific.com/

    And yes it’s a loaded question, but not off topic if you consider the implications if you answer either way. JC, thanks for both posts. So often saying anything gets one burned at the stake these days.

41. 041 // dwaas76 // 08.31.2006 // 11:49 AM

    Thanks for the great articles. I found myself going “yes, exactly!” along with most of it. I work on a lot of financial sites in the UK, which fall under the newer laws requiring them to be accessible. I am all for correct (X)HTML, alt tags, data table markup and what have you, but I do think people take things too far…it is just not possible or practical to cover every situation. The fact that one can’t say this without having the fanatics yelling at you is too annoying for words. Let’s just do what should be done with all fanatics and ignore them. That way the reasonable people can come up with practical solutions!

    Also, have you noticed that a lot of people spout accessibilty stuff without having a clear idea of it is actually meant to do? I’ve had endless discussions on the subject of alt tags for decorative images for example. It’s often the most zealous people who lose sight of what the feature is meant to achieve in the first place.

42. 042 // Isofarro // 09.03.2006 // 6:02 AM

    Maz (comment15): “Firstly, I commend you for being one of the very very few who evidently has the courage to walk on the eggshells and state a view that has long-since needed stating.”

    Yes, thank you for having the courage to expose this problem. We do have a problem in the web accessibility field - its populated by an echo-chamber of misguided people, and an echo chamber that has lost touch of technology movement of the last three to four years. This has effectively stalled progress in web accessibility - its only recently that the voices about accessible Ajax are being heard. But getting forward momentum going is frustratingly difficult.

    Your points do stand up. Its clear that you have a very good grasp of web accessibility. I thank you for that.

    There are a couple of guys doing excellent work in web accessibility circles - I ask that you consider what they do without tarring them with the same brush as the zealots you are having trouble with. Be objectively critical - but don’t tar them.

    Design and accessibility are both a necessary part of building websites - they both contribute to assisting the visitor in completing the task they set-out to do, or assist them in getting to the informations they are looking for.

    The supposed benefits of webstandards is that content can be repurposed where necessary. The ability to strip CSS away, and insert a different style is a feature of the web - and as you correctly state - the user should use the available tools that improved their individual experiences. That’s the baseline of web accessibility - we must have faith that the visitor comes to the table with the right tools.

43. 043 // Stephen // 09.06.2006 // 4:07 PM

    Jeff:

    Didn’t read the comments, but agree with you completely. I’ve always felt there was an “ivory tower” thing going on in the standards genre. I also find that some of the most accomplished standards gurus have very poor design skills, which is more than often overlooked in lieu of their “expertise”.

    Seems to me people use access keys, alternate stylesheets, and validation tags more for personal validation rather than for the audience. Sort of like wearing a brand name.

    This might be fine for the folks making $500 websites from the basement of their parents house, but it’s just not feasible for most businesses out there.

    Thanks for the post.

44. 044 // Marc // 09.12.2006 // 2:05 PM

    As a disabled person and budding accessibility consultant, I couldn’t agree more with what you said.

    Kudos to you for having the balls to post your opinion so openly.

45. 045 // Richard Morton // 09.13.2006 // 9:47 AM

    Just a few thoughts:

    1) In an ideal world, web developers should not have to think about accessibility. It should be built into the standards, web development tools, browsers, operating systems, adaptive devices etc. In the real world this happens to some degree but there is a long way to go.

    2) Any kind of design is inevitably a compromise. Print design is often made accessible through alternative versions in braille, audio, large print etc. but there are always commercial decisions to be made.

    3) Focusing on the web for accessibility is healthy in many ways becuase it is one of the easiest media to make more accessible, and it is becoming increasingly universal. Other software applications are more difficult to make accessible, but only because very little effort has been put into this so far.

    Richard Morton http://www.accessibleweb.eu/

46. 046 // George // 09.20.2006 // 7:13 AM

    It is a great shame when debate turns into mud slinging.

    For me the Accessibility debate has largely been through its cycle. Professional developers follow WCAG guidelines and laws exist in the US and UK that require websites to be accessible.

    It is only a matter of time before a test case occurs either side of the Atlantic. Indeed the ball is rolling with this case - http://webaim.org/blog/2006/09/08/

    There are many other issues on the web that deserve our attention now and suggesting this does not mean that you do not care about Accessiblity.

47. 047 // Lee // 09.22.2006 // 8:56 AM

    Hi Jeff, I just want to mention one point (your sixth I think) from your original post…

    You talk about browser / OS makers’ responsibilities for making the web easier to use (facilitating zooming etc) and I agree that they should, but what about the situation as it is today?

    Take my mum for example, in her 60’s and struggling with using the internet anyway. There’s absolutely no point my telling her to use the OS controls to increase the text size of a site, or to create her own stylesheet to control background colours. She wouldn’t know what I was talking about. The problem as it stands for these kinds of issues (which in many cases aren’t a matter of “preference” but of necessity) is that they’re just too complicated for most web users. Your blog is talking to other designers here, not the wider audience of less savvy web users who might well use the sites you develop.

    I fully understand what you’ve said, and agree, that there are limits (budgetary, time etc) on what can be achieved, and i’ve had the same issues myself.

    In conclusiong Jeff I broadly agree with you, but unfortunately from browsing the comments to this and your previous post, I think there may be some who use your comments as an excuse to absolve themselves as developers from any responsibility for accessibility. I know this isn’t your intention, but I think that might just be how it pans out. Sorry for the lengthy reply….

48. 048 // Jeff Croft // 09.22.2006 // 9:19 AM

    Hi, Lee. Thanks for the comments. :)

    Take my mum for example, in her 60’s and struggling with using the internet anyway. There’s absolutely no point my telling her to use the OS controls to increase the text size of a site, or to create her own stylesheet to control background colours. She wouldn’t know what I was talking about.

    Totally understood. But my opinion is that this is an indication that the UIs for these things aren’t as simple as they should be. It’s not an indication that I, the web designer of a single site on the internet, should go and duplicate their functionality in my page because I think I can outdo Apple or Microsoft’s UI.

    Consider this: if every designer put, say, text-sizing controls in his/her webpages, what would happen? Mass confusion. One one page, the button to increase the text size is a plus sign, and it’s in the upper right. On the next, it’s a large “A”, and it’s on the left sidebar. On the next, it’s not a button at all — it’s a slider at the bottom of the page.

    If you think your mom can’t learn to resize the text now, just wait until she’s got to relearn it for every web site she visits.

    I think there may be some who use your comments as an excuse to absolve themselves as developers from any responsibility for accessibility. I know this isn’t your intention, but I think that might just be how it pans out.

    Perhaps — but if that’s the attitude these people are taking, they would have found another excuse not to do it anyway.

    And really, why would anyone listen to me over any of the accessibility gurus posting on their blogs out there?

49. 049 // ChadL // 09.30.2006 // 4:29 PM

    Balance.

    We must balance our budgets, just like we should balance accessibility with design. And I’m in no way suggesting you’re not doing this.

    The scary thing is we still do have those among us that are beyond ignorant when it comes to producing responsible, senstive and above all accessible web sites.

    If one is not “professional”, who’s to say the “tools” one OS or Browser may provide will be effective.

    You still come across many sites out there that a screen reader “tool” would be virtually ineffective.

50. 050 // Rosie Sherry // 11.03.2006 // 9:03 AM

    I’ve recently posted my thoughts on my blog covering accessibility statements and accessibility in general.

    My background is in software testing and I am becoming some what frustrated at the way accessibility is heading, in some cases - not all.

51. 051 // Andy Baird // 11.08.2006 // 8:40 PM

    Well said, Jeff.

    Before retiring 18 months ago, I spent many years designing websites and web-based software at a large standardized testing organization. Many’s the time I butted heads with management who did not want to budget for accessibility. Hence, I think I’m about as strong an advocate for accessibility as anyone.

    Strong…but not fanatical. All of your points are well taken. Resources are not infinite, and all websites are not equally important. Demanding that all users with all possible disabilities be able to access all websites using all browsers is not realistic.

    If I can’t register online for the SAT or GRE exam, that’s one thing. Not being able to take those tests would significantly affect my future, so a high standard of accessibility is warranted there. On the other hand, if I can’t get into Coca-Cola’s website because I don’t have the latest versions of Flash and Windows Media Player, that’s a business decision on their part. While I may resent it, they are entitled to make it.

    Andy Baird

52. 052 // Rogers Mc // 11.11.2006 // 8:42 PM

    Jeff, I for one, think you make cogent and rational points. For some reason or another, Accessibility became and remained a bandwagon that the design industry has adopted without enough thought. And while there are some very good reasons for some of the protocols and standards, there remain some that are simply unrealistic, cumbersome, and counter-productive to the original intent. If the goal is to make the internet a better “place”, then the next logical question becomes “For Whom?” and answering that question in terms of a very narrow audience can lead to not necessarily making it a better place for ALL-insofar as those of us who advocate the common sense approach are included as part of the “all.” I think some guidelines are necessary and effective in some cases but as you have pointed out there are plenty of reasons not to make the jump from guidelines or suggestions to standards. Of course, most of those who express this are immediately labeled some kind of heretic, discriminatory, and/or insensitive!

53. 053 // Christian // 08.27.2007 // 12 PM

    Hope you don’t mind if I’m playing catch-up here, Jeff. I agree with everything in your two posts and am able to pick up on the nuances of what you’re saying instead of taking things the wrong way and twisting them into you not caring about accessibility. My approach is to do the best I can to make things as accessible as possible to the greatest number of people possible within the restraints of the project and then to wait for (or invite) comments from users who can make suggestions on things you can tweak to make the site even more accessible. In a decade of putting websites together I have only received one such comment. It was from a visually impaired person who said I should change how I did the colors on my site. I wrote to him and asked him how I could change it to suit him and he never wrote back. That was in 1998. Nobody has ever brought up accessibility problems to me regarding any sites I have worked on since then.

54. 054 // gowner // 02.23.2008 // 4:19 AM

    Don’t waste a millisecond on people who insult you personally the way you described. Granted, there are too many web designers/developers who really don’t care about accessibility at all, and that’s disguistingly unprofessional. But one should make an effort of actually looking into someone’s work—and thereby differentiating between those who just don’t care and those who’ve had to make practical compromises they wish they wouldn’t have had to make—before throwing bad language at them. It’s plain lame to simply assume that someone’s an uncaring bastard because it fits so nicely into your religious warfare attitude (as so often, this can be applied to other areas of life, too).

55. 055 // Mertone // 10.14.2008 // 5:55 AM

    All home appliances, coffee machines etc., many articles - coffee machines, blenders, best price

© 1999-2008 Jeffrey A. Croft. Hosted by WebFaction.
Views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.