Adapting Existing Federal Web Sites For The Disabled? 111
Rafajafar asks: "I work as part of a federally-funded Webteam for a prestigious laboratory in the states. It has recently come to my attention that our government has placed a burden on us. Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act back in '98 which instantiated a committee to ensure that all federal technologies do not treat those with disabilities unfairly. This board released a set of standards that they created to ensure that the government doesn't violate the Rehab Act. This, although wonderful for the disabled, leaves many of us media lackeys at these federal facilities with a bit of a conundrum. How do we fix all this stuff within 6 months? Our site has thousands of pages that would need to be sorted through by hand and even with us abandoning all projects for 6 months, we would not be able to guarantee all pages to be fixed. I know our team isn't the only one with this problem, so I was wondering if you guys have any good ideas on how to go about changing our site, our videos, our presentations, and pretty much anything else that relies on one sense over another. We would prefer to avoid using the 'Undue Burden' clause as much as possible."
Re:Fuck You! (Score:1)
If you are creating a webpage for the government or a public company, you cannot create a webpage that is not easily accessible to the handicapped. Federal law requires that you abide by these [access-board.gov] standards when doing professional web design.
"The ratio of people who are blind to people who are not is just too fucking small to bother wasting my time on the disabled"
Using your argument, why does anyone develop for Linux since it's user base is so minute compared to MacOS or Windows.
flexibility, good faith, and double standards (Score:1)
For example, the local fire marshal came into our server room and found -no- sprinklers, and had a holy fit; he demanded we "get something installed by Friday, or I shut this place down."
Pretty harsh, considering the quickest you can get a dry supression system is on the order of weeks; plans have to be submitted for approval to the city, the room has to be sealed, then leak tested, then possibly further sealed...then the plumbing work can start, etc.
He was perfectly reasonable when a few days later we presented our side; we had 3 quotes from vendors and written, signed quotes saying they wouldn't even be able to start work for a week or two. He was very reasonable about the whole thing and made it clear he just wanted to see action and progress.
Provided your team makes a good-faith effort, shows regular progress, realistic predicted completion dates, etc...I can't see anyone having a beef with you. If you simply throw your hands up, get really stressed, and say "It can never be done!", then yes, a lot of people are going to have a problem with that. All of what I've said applies to just about anything in school, business, etc.
I was fortunate enough to have a professor or two who believed in the same; even if I turned in my paper/report/project a few days late, I had approached him before, explained I was having a rough time...AND I had seeked help and he could see I was making progress, or at least a concerted effort
Along the same lines, you may find some help from unexpected places. How about working with some organizations to get help from some handicapped high school students interested in computers, looking to learn more about HTML, scripting, and what your lab does? Not only might you reach your goal sooner, but you'll be solving the problem in an innovative way, be able to ask those groups to help make sure the content is useable, and making it very tough for anyone to come after you and say you haven't made the effort! They'll look pretty stupid yelling at you for being 2 months late if you can come back and say you helped half a dozen people learn valuable skills and you've got documented progress and good predictions on completion dates.
On a seperate issues, some people complained about the legislation...the purpose of the legislation isn't to be unreasonable, difficult or cost the government big bucks. It's simply to make sure handicapped people get the same access to material which is being increasingly moved online; seems fair enough, and, honestly, information on how to make this information available in such forms has been publicized(including on slashdot) and generally available for quite some time; this stuff didn't just come out of the blue sky a few days ago.
It's amusing to see the same hoards of people who bitched about sites not having ALT tags for lynx(which is a -PREFERENCE-; you don't -have- to use a text-only browser; you could install/run X and a dozen X browsers, or use MacOS/Windows/commercial unix) turn around and complain when someone makes them do similar work that is -REQUIRED- for someone who is handicapped to look at your content.
You demand the world accomodate your preferences, but won't help someone who has to be led daily by a seeing eye dog, or faces more challenges in day than you will your entire life? Give me a break. That's just simply -pathetic-.
A lot of nonsense (Score:1)
That being said, I think it should be pretty easy to go through the images, add a discriptor to each, and maybe even make sure you aren't putting too much text in bitmaps. Perhaps for each important video presentation, add a text file commentary. Not for all of them, just a bunch.
That's not a lot of work at all, and can easily be done in six months. You don't have *that* many pages!
Anything more is a waste of your and my tax money.
Use the tools you have. (Score:1)
When I started retrofitting my business site [idar.com], the first thing I did was generate a report using BBedit of which pages weren't HTML4.0 compliant. This gave me a list of what I needed to fix. I fixedas much as was possible with unix scripting, but mostly, I had to check each page as I went. The key is that I knew that I couldn't show everything to the blind, or lynx user, but I had to let them know what they were missing. with framesets, I gracefully degrade the bit where it usually tells you to get a better browser with a table of contents for the connected frames. If you have multimedia that won't degrade, inset a 1x1 pixel image in the space before the / tag, and use an alt tag that describes what the mutimedia was for .
Why did a jewellery store web site go to this trouble? I have blind customers... they may not appreciate jewellery, but their sighted spouses do. The extra effort is worth it, if it makes me one big sale, because it shows I care. Any business that cuts off potential customers from acces is just plain stupid IMNSHO.
The web page isn't perfect yet, but it is navigable to the blind. It also has all those things that people say you shouldn't use if you want it accessible to the disabled; frames, javascript rollovers, flash etc. the key is that those things are extras that add (or detract depending on your design aesthetic) to the site, and are not absolutely needed.
Make the judgement calls on what to leave in, but it is worth the effort to make the site HTML4 compliant. I also learned a hell of a lot about how to really design a website, as opposed to putting together a few web pages. My next revision will involve moving everything to CSS.
Re:Disabled people (Score:1)
Step 7: Call your lawyer to deal with all the lawsuits from the people you fired since nowhere in the job description nor in any management communication was "frontpage is forbidden" expressed until the pink slip was handed out.
Step 8: Hire a whole new web crew now that the remaining overstressed webmasters who did know their shit have quit.
Step 9: Go to step 1.
--
Re:I've come across this.. (Score:1)
it's rather impossible to create a Braille website, no? I personally can't wait to see a site such as Slashdot be forced to switch to a 32pt font
You have abolutely no knowledge about the possibilities of web technology.
Or are you one of those stupid web-DUH-signers who actually believe the user's client must present your content the exact way you have visualized it? If so, please make sure you get hit by a car before you risk reproducing.
Design process (Score:1)
If people actually put some thought into their website design this would be a non issue. Compliance isn't hard if it's built in from the start.
And to whoever said that this is basically a load of BS for the govmt to do this, you really want to turn those with disabilities into second class citizens? Because that's what happens when you deny them informational resources about the workings of their government and it's agencies.
I know I'm repeating myself, but this burden, wouldn't be a burden if someone with a freaking clue in interface design had done the websites in the first place.
Re:Stop it... (Score:1)
You don't need to modify the website for this.
"Bigger version for the partially sighted: Click Here"
"Louder version for the deaf: Click Here"
Re:National Parks Service? (Score:1)
So far no one has mentioned the obvious fact that we will ALL be "handicapped" by time, our life style, accidents, and so on.
I don't know about you, but I'm 33, so I've been abusing my body for the last 20 years or so:
- Watching too much TV
- Listening to too much loud music on headphones or going to concerts (although that is totally worth it)
- Spending too much time coding, web browsing, playing Unreal Tournament...
- Spending too much time inside, rather than outside getting excercise
- And don't forget the worst invention for all our wrists: the mouse and crappy computer GUI design (how many right handed people do you know that have switched to using their left hand?)
Add all that up and I consider these regulations a good thing for me; not now, but in the next 15 years or so.Have any HTML coders used even something as simple and very useful as the accesskey attribute in some of their elements?
This isn't the nearly the same as retrofitting mountains or bringing the standard down to the lowest denominator. This is just plain good sense and will help all of us over time. -- My sig is too cool to post, you'd just steal it and use it as your own. --
SOCOG and the blind (Score:1)
Is this fair? Dead right! It ain't to hard to put alt text into the images section (grep img | grep -v alt will find all those images with alt tags), as well as everything else. As they say, a stitch in time saves nine.
A Simple Solution (Score:1)
> treat those with disabilities unfairly.
I'm not sure about the exact wording of the law (nor am I a lawyer), but it seems that fair treatment could be provided relatively straightforwardly.
Rather than trying to gain control (and find some standardization) of all of your disparate existing web pages, what you should do is hire some professional "government web surfers" and provide a phone number (toll-free) where the disabled (primarily the blind, I would assume) can call and have someone look up the appropriate information on the government web site and read it to them.
Such an on-demand service I believe has precedents: as far as I am aware, most educational services for disabled students (such as the tape recording of a text-book or lectures) are performed on-demand when a situation comes up rather than in advance; it also seems similiar to the concept of 411 service as opposed to a physical phone book.
--craig
Practical Advice (Score:1)
Hi, Rafajafar -- I've met some of your web design team in the past, so I feel as if I "know" the JLAB.org folks in a way, and I've spoken with them about web accessibility, too.
I agree with you that this is a complex problem; Section 508 compliance is a major issue facing all federal agencies. The bad news is that if you haven't already been taking steps towards understanding web accessibility, you may be in a bit of difficulty. The issues surrounding access by people with disabilities are not new; this has been discussed for a number of years, and as others have stated, it really is just a part of basic, quality web design, not anything particularly extraordinary.
Unfortunately, while it's not all that hard to do it right, many people don't realize that, and many web sites, including federal sites, have accessibility problems.
Several great resources have already been posted on this thread, such as the Web Accessibility Initiative [w3.org] and CAST's Bobby web accessibility evaluator [cast.org]. Here's some others that might help you:
As you can see from the links I listed, I'm involved in helping to solve this problem in a number of ways -- including the work with my "day job" employer, formerly Edapta, now Reef [reef.com] to develop software that adapts a page to the user's requirements. If you need more information on this topic, you can drop me a note (but please, not all of you); full disclosure is that Idyll Mountain also does consulting on this very topic, but don't worry, I'm not going to hard-sell anyone my services.
At Reef recently I was asked to answer an editorial inquiry regarding this very question Rafajafar asked. Here's what I said:
--Kynn Bartlett
The Plan (Score:1)
Now that's a pretty open-ended question.
I would:
1. Study your goal
2. Understand your current state
3. Build a plan to migrate your current state towards your goal, with the understanding of your deadline and your staff's capabilities
4. Pursue the goal.
It's really simple, but an incredible number of people can't deal with it.
The important part is to not spend all your time whining about your duties. It just makes you look like you and your organization didn't properly do your job in the first place.
Re:National Parks Service? (Accessibility) (Score:1)
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:1)
When in doubt though, call the access-board, they are very helpful.
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:1)
You are probably being required by the DoD to conform to 504 which requires general accessibility and many agencies have been conforming to the proposed, and now final, 508 regs as part of 504 compliance.
In any event, call the access board yourself and they will tell you the same thing. 508 compliance IS NOT retro. Or call your agency coordinator. Or see the FAQ at access-board.gov which clearly states "on or after".
I am pretty sure I have this right since I am helping coordiante the preperation for compliance for 70 web sites covering 5 agencies and have spent a good deal of time hashing this out with lawyers and agency coordinators.
Re:Wow, you really DO have a problem (Score:1)
a suggestion on a solution for your problem (Score:1)
I have a couple, but thats only because you have more than 1 problem, you have 3.
suddenly, the first two problems are the easy ones. But, of course, i have a solution, or solutions rather - that encompass not only issues 1 and 2, but 3 as well.
I would outline these solutions further RIGHT HERE, but i dont want to do all that explaining if my email never gets read, or you dont wish to hear it.
so write me if you want to hear more, and i will gladly explain.
-voudras [mailto]Re:Why worry so much? (Score:1)
Re:Why worry so much? (Score:1)
moderators come on, insightful, he said ignore the problem. that has never been an insightful solution to any problem.
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
But wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot automatically worked well in any browsing environment? Then when I switch from my desktop at work to my Palm on the subway, I wouldn't have to bother changing my Slashdot prefs or using a different login.
(Slashdot's default mode actually works well on Palms, but you get the idea.)
Re:Policy Moderation? (Score:1)
The cancer research lab isn't having its researchers do Web page design or its Web page designers doing cancer research.
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
Your second idea doesn't sound better to me since it requires maintaining two separate pages--twice as much work. And how do you decide where to draw the separation? There are many more than two kinds of browser.
Your first idea--one page that looks good and works for all--sounds a lot better.
One word... (Score:1)
Try betsie (and shortly patsie) (Score:1)
One simple but surprisingly effective solution is to post-process the HTML through, for example, a CGI script that strips out the majority of the formatting information and allows page colours and text size to be modified.
One freely available CGI script that does this is the BBC's Betsie [bbc.co.uk] and another will be our own Patsie [212.158.27.93] which will shortly be available under some free license, most probably GPL.
Betsie's great but it doesn't work on the infernal IIS, which unfortunately we have to accomodate from time to time, so we're developing Patsie to rectify that.
Re:It's not as bad as it seems (Score:1)
Re:Can't feel sorry for ya (Score:1)
I've tried to explain this, but it's like slamming into a wall...
The last pages that I've done have so many nested tables to make it like the damn form, it's not even funny. Ugh...
Re:National Parks Service? (Score:1)
The US Government would not have had to step in and make this sort of thing mandatory, had it been done properly to begin with. Sometimes just letting people do their own thing simply doesn't work out so hot. This is why there are building codes, mandatory drug trials, etc.
When `the Market' fails, the Government should step in. That's one of the reasons why you have one. So stop bitching.
Re:I've come across this.. (Score:1)
If you're a professional web designer with this sort of attitude, you shouldn't be.
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:1)
In many situations, partial compliance with the ADA is considered acceptable, as long as you have a documented plan for bringing yourself into full compliance, and can demonstrate that you are making progress on that plan.
I spent several years working for a company that performed ADA evaluations, and I've seen an incredible amount money wasted on "fix it now but do it half-assed" solutions -- and those quick fixes often aren't even worth anything if you're sued, because they aren't in compliance with the applicable guidelines/regulations.
Contact a couple of the bigger advocacy groups for information; my experience has been that they have better information, and are far more helpful than the government. They'll help you understand what you really need to do, and can point you to other resources as well.
The most important thing is to do this right. You're not doing anybody any favors if you get your project done badly, but on schedule.
No problem. (Score:1)
Re:Disabled people (Score:1)
Edward Burr
Wrong (Score:1)
I work for the USPS and can confirm that all web sites must be 508 compliant by June 22, 2001. Yes, this means retroactively.
Re:Blindness (Score:1)
What we've been instructed to do at the USPS is either make the web sites, including all content, easily accesible via a screen reader like JAWS (I wouldn't recommend installing this on anything important) or have an alternate method of viewing the content.
So, for pdf files, powerpoint presentations, etc., you would have to provide an alternate meansof receiving the content.
Re:Disabled people (Score:1)
Good Book (Score:1)
Like this? (Score:1)
<body>
<font size="+2">
[Page Here]
</font>
</body>
</html>
Re:CSS/Javascript Method.... (Score:1)
My site uses CSS extensively, and it resizes fonts based on browser settings...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Re:Can't feel sorry for ya (Score:1)
Of course you're not. Because every government agency on earth is "underfunded." When was the last time you heard a bureaucrat say "man, are we sitting pretty"? You could quadruple a government agency's budget and mission creep and bloat would absorb it like a sponge, and they'd still bitch about how they're strapped. I spent 10 years as a federal employee, and my experiences there are why I begrudge every dollar I send to Uncle Sam.
(Ahhh, nothing like that first rant of the day.)
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:1)
Re:A lot of nonsense (Score:1)
A disabled person's view. (Score:1)
We're not allowed to hang up signs any more (thankfully) which bar black people from certain drinking establishments or busses but when you exclude a disabled person from one of society's functions then you're just doing the same thing. Except you picked a different minority.
If you accept, as I do, this point of view then chickening out because "it's difficult" is not an option.
I'm probably being melodramatic here but what the hell, I'm part of an oppressed minority... Where would be be in the world if Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King had claimed "it's too hard"?
Watch out for us crips. We coming and we're damned angry!
BTW I may refer to myself as a crip, you, dear reader, may not.
Secondly there is an economic argument here. Here in Britain there are 6.2 million disabled people with 33 billions pounds to spend (I can't speak for the USA) and anyone who regularly excludes those people is likely to make less money than somone who does not exclude them.
Excluding 6.2 million potential customers (UK only) seems to indicate a paucity in the clue department.
Thirdly, it's not hard.
Good design for disabled people is good design period. And this doesn't just refer to websites either.
Installing a ramp or having level access into your premises not only makes it accessible for people who use a wheelchair, it helps the photocopier engineer or the guy taking out the trash. It might just save you from a lawsuit or two.
It doesn't take much to make a site accessible for disabled people, this is not rocket science were talking about. Just follow the guidlines and after a while it just comes naturally.
How difficult can it be to use ALT tags when specifying an image? Or to ensure that you don't use colour alone to convey information and some other such blindingly obvious "tricks"
Judging by some of the sites I've auditted it's nigh on impossible!
It takes mere seconds to run a page through an accessibility checker like Bobby at http://www.cast.org/bobby/
[Begin Sermon]
Please do not refer to my community as "the disabled". We are disabled people, and everytime someone talks about disability issues without mentioning the word people then we as a society forget just a tiny bit more that this is a people issue.
If we keep forgetting hard enough and for long enough we'll be back to the dark days of the Third Reich where disabled people were shot, starved, experimented on like lab rats and then shot... The list goes on.
[End sermon - The preacher has left the building and was last seen planning mass civil disobedience with a bunch of fellow crips]
Ian
Re:Disabled people (Score:1)
It's actually quite easy (Score:1)
I founded a company that builds software focused on solving this problem. Interestingly enough it is fairly easy to build a *combo* page that is compliant with the standards. As a previous post stated the largest problems, with regard to accessibility, have much more to do with poor HTML usage, rather than an ignorance of the needs of disabled communities.
The problem that the government currently faces is that they have lots and lots of employees who build there websites yet know little of the world beyond FrontPage. This makes it difficult for them to build proper combination pages,a task that is relatively trivial for a well trained designer.
Got 508?
Human-Computer Interaction (Score:1)
How I test for HC use... (Score:1)
However, if you really want to go hard-core with your testing you should find a few handicapped browsers and/or equipment and test on those. And if you really want to be hard core gather this equipment and have HC ppl test the pages.
Re:Disabled people (Score:1)
Re:Stop it... (Score:1)
The accessibility concerns are fully dependent on the equipment used to communicate and receive the information at the users end and this is not within your power nor should it be your concern.
I can't tell whether you're trolling, or what.
User equipment cannot turn a graphical navigation imagemap into something a blind person can use. Only the site's creator can do that.
You might as well say that we don't need ramps at the library because some paraplegic's inability to climb the stairs is an end-user equipment problem.
Re:Practical advice from someone who's doing it (Score:1)
f3e2 pumped his lynx stats with the use of <META> tags.
hot goatse.lynx, np lynx, naked lynx...
Re:Like this? (Score:1)
Frankly, most of the problematic issues are cropping up because developers forgot to keep the *style* of their HTML separate from the *structure* of their HTML.
Stylesheets have been around for _years_. And while browsers don't have great support for the full spec, most presentational aspects such as font, size, color, etc. work well cross-browser.
<!DOCTYPE...>
<html>
<head>
<title>Foo</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/lowvis.css">
</head>
<body>
<!--#include file="structured_content.html"-->
</body>
</html>
Re:Why worry so much? (Score:1)
Here in Canada there's a law that forces businesses to make their office/store accessible to handicapped people. While this sounds great, what does a struggling mom and pop shop do? make $8000 in renovations to accomodate 1 or 2 people? That could easily put some small businesses out of business.
I wish there was a perfect solution as much as the next person, but there isn't.
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:1)
Re:browse with lynx (Score:1)
Built-in handicap features (Score:1)
It's not as bad as it seems (Score:1)
Re:A possible plan AND SOME THOUGHTS (Score:1)
1) a wav file / visual clues could welcome the user to the site and advise them of the following.
a) if your eyesite is bad, move your mouse to the left side of the screen for larger characters.
b) if you can't see. then move your mouse to the right and you will get spoken versions of the text enclosed
2) when the user moves the respected sections a copy of the "normal pages" load up but with the special features.
I think it would not be so hard to recode the web pages for larger fonts. As for the speaking section. I think that there is enough software out there that can convert text to spoken word ( please advise of a link if you know )
as for checking the documents, that's were you'll lose some time but not that much.
I hope that helps
as for the blind and hearing impaired. I don't have a solution for it ( hey if you have an idea toss it up for discusion)
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop music news
please help me make it better
Do most popular pages first (Score:2)
I would start by examining the logs to see which pages are requested the most and fix them first.
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Understanding (Score:2)
What you fail to understand is that this guy is just one person who suddenly has been given the task of making all the content in his domain accessible. The content itself was input from hundreds if not thousands of sources.
As far as complying to W3C standards, even today there isn't even one HTML editor that is 100% compliant. The closest I've seen is HTML-Kit. Really, if I had to point any fingers it would have to be at the W3C for dragging ass on implementing needed standards. By acting so frigging slow, being indecisive, they all but ensured that software companies would either develop their own standards of pick and choose among the W3C standards for those they didn't think would be depricated in six months. Then I would blame the software companies that still fail at making content creation simple enough that laymen can create presentable, standards compliant HTML. Then I would point to the government for failing to realize the potential of the internet for collaborative efforts and information dissimination. Even today.
has anyone answered your question? (Score:2)
Frist I'd start out by seeing what thes pages look like in lynx browser. Do you see everything? Can all the info be accessed? Many people who are blind or using braile reads WONT get the images, unless you put the alt= tag with ALL the images. Next make sure your URL's are accessable and if you use image maps make sure there is also an alt text.
Next if you are using JavaScript make sure that you include the noscript so that they can see what they are missing. Also make sure you are not using JavaScript to perform any sort of extra features that they may miss out on if they're braile reading browser does not handle JavaScript. The best way to do this is to turn off JavaScript on your browser and make sure you can still access ALL the functionality of the site.
Lastly or alternatively you could make a link on the front door to handcap accessable pages.
Many people here seem to think that they do not need to do anything extra to help the handcap view pages, but they do. Also you should realize that there are more browsers out there than just IE and netscape and some people are minimalists and use some of these lightweight browsers. If this is a goverment page, you MUST be accessable by all.
Additionally you may want to see how it is in other languages. Some states may require that a site be accessible in multiple languages, like english and spanish, or it may be worth it to make the site this way if it is a local goverment site and you have alot of a particular ethnic group.
These are suggestions.. the best one is to ask your boss what the hell they really want ...
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Stop it... (Score:2)
Your website does not define the media which will be used to define it. Your website will just send down the Internet pipe what it is requested for.
The accessibility concerns are fully dependent on the equipment used to communicate and receive the information at the users end and this is not within your power nor should it be your concern.
Did you write this website manually...??? You could do with a content management system...
Some good articles on this subject.. (Score:2)
Accessibility: more than the right thing to do [evolt.org]
Workforce investment act of 1998 [usdoj.gov]
Accessibility: The Clock is Ticking [evolt.org]
Getting Started with Usability Testing [evolt.org]
Give a little slack people (Score:2)
The original request was for advice and suggestions on how to deal with this, and more or less stating that they didn't want to use any get out clause.
I think this attitude should be applauded, all too many people are willing to avoid this sort of problem, and an honest request for help and suggestions on a difficult subject should be met with positive help and advice. It is very easy to throw stones.
Personally I think that pragmatically you should do your best to ensure the major pages are dealt with and have a rolling program of gradually updating those pages that it is practical and sensible to changes. You should also have along with this, some sort of standard for web pages that advises on making new and updated pages as multiple-sense friendly (or whatever the PC term is) as possible.
--
Composite Reply on Web Accessibility (Score:2)
A few composite replies to some of the statements that have been made here:
fleener wrote: [slashdot.org]
Either the W3C standards will change to somehow radically change the makeup of pages on-the-fly for blind users, or another Jakob Nielsen will rise to power and make a lot of money.
Actually, the W3C standard to change the makeup of pages on the fly exists; it's XSLT [w3.org] -- XSL Transformations. We use it at Reef [reef.com] (formerly Edapta) to do dynamic edaptations of the user interface to meet the needs of various audiences, including people with disabilities. If you want to see the semi-non-public demo pages from last year, drop me a note in email. (I'm not at liberty to get us slashdotted at the moment!)
Argy offered great advice [slashdot.org], including:
As to what you're looking for, I'd spend some time browsing your sites using lynx.
If you haven't used Lynx for a long time, and don't want to bother to install it, you can also try Delorie's Lynx Viewer [delorie.com], a web-based lynx simulator script.
GC wrote [slashdot.org]:
You do not have to change your website at all. Your website does not define the media which will be used to define it. Your website will just send down the Internet pipe what it is requested for. The accessibility concerns are fully dependent on the equipment used to communicate and receive the information at the users end and this is not within your power nor should it be your concern.
I beg to differ here; it's a common fallacy that assistive technology can solve all of the problems of access. In fact, I included this on a list of Common Myths About Web Accessibility [hwg.org] because many people seem to think that a screenreader or braille terminal can fix everything [hwg.org].
The problem, however, is a simple "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. Assistive technology needs enough information to be able to cobble together an alternate access method. That information is encoded within the HTML file. If the HTML file is poorly done, then it may prove impossible to get even the minimum information from a page.
If you don't want to simply believe me because I say it's so, then you could do a test yourself -- download a screenreader and try it out on a web page and see how it works. You may be disappointed to find that it's not as easy as you'd hoped -- and then remember that for many people this is their only way to access the web.
A few quick links to screenreader (or screenreader-like) technology:
Enjoy!
--Kynn Bartlett
Just get going (Score:2)
Do the best you can, make it clear from day one that you are doing your best and spell out the additional resources required to get it done in time.
Everyone has to deal with unattainable goals, demonstrate you are making an honest effort is pretty much the only thing you can do.
Re:A possible plan (Score:2)
Then really, and I mean really learn regular expressions.
I use these to change the look and feel of web pages all the time.
Basic suggestions (Score:2)
With thousands of pages, I'd write a program to read through all of them, labeling whether they seem to be okay as is, or if not list what elements may need work, the most common example being "add alt tags to images," but also audio or video files that could use transcription, server-side image maps, and that sort of thing. If all your html files are on one server, this is pretty easy, but you could also modify a web crawler to scan multiple servers. There are web-based checkers that do this sort of thing, including W3C's own HTML validator [w3.org], but you'll probably want to write your own, dealing only with the issues you find really require changes.
As to what you're looking for, I'd spend some time browsing your sites using lynx. Navigation and comprehension doesn't have to be perfect, but it should seem basically usable. The W3's guidelines give all sorts of specific suggestions, but for the most part, browsing in lynx and applying common sense will obviate the areas that need work.
Some of JLab's pages are very visual, but most just need alt tags added. For pages that need changes, look at http://www.jlab.org [jlab.org], which has essentially one image cut into 30 GIFs to allow pretty mouse-over highlights on its links. There are essentially three choices for this sort of page.
1) Parallel pages. Put a "text-friendly version" link at the top, with a parallel, text-friendly version. This is only necessary for certain pages - keep links on the pages the same and just put alternate versions of each page as it's needed. And I wouldn't go text-only, just text-friendly....
2) Text-only makeover. Redo the page to cut out the unnecessary graphical frills you put so much work into creating, thereby having *only* a text-friendly version.
3) Dual-use makeover. Redo the page to use unnecessary frills, but with text-friendliness in mind as well. This doesn't really take any more work than the doing a text-unfriendly design, but since you're doing it over, text-unfriendly design, but since you're doing it over, it's certainly a hassle.
Ultimately I think dual-use, accessible design is what the legislation in question is trying to encourage.
anybrowser.com (Score:2)
The same issue is on the table at my university, where there is a big push to make the websites available to people with disabilities and/or without the latest technologies.
Re:Disabled people (Score:2)
You apparently don't know what HTML 4 [w3.org] is. HTML 4 Transitional and HTML 4 Frameset may cater to people with working eyes, but HTML 4 Strict does not.
I use HTML 4 Strict on all new pages that I write, and eyes are not required.
Solution: Stop Whining, Start Working (Score:2)
<reaching for calculator>
Six months, 20 work days per month (allowing for some sick/vacation), just 2 people assigned to the task, that's 1920 man/hours for the project.
You've got 11 1/2 minutes per document. You need to be converting 84 document per day (if the total really is 10000), so keep track of the progress and make sure you're meeting the 84 document daily quota. The message say "thousands", if it's really closer to 2000 or 3000, this really isn't such a difficult task.
Perhaps each of these thousands of documents really does require a substantial rework, but the much more likely case is that many of them are designed similarily which will speed the process. If most of it is poorly built html (adding alt tags, etc), 11 minutes per page should be plenty, even 5 minutes may be ok. How long does it really take to make similar changes to a large pile of documents?
I read the tone of this posting as basically the victim mentality. With that mindset, you'll probably never even get started.
A godsend for some (Score:2)
Only the first wave (Score:2)
After state and federal sites are made accessible, disabled users will want more (as they should) because of how many services will be delivered online. Vision impaired users, in particular, will want sites tailored to the hardware and software and distinctly different style of navigation they must use. Either the W3C standards will change to somehow radically change the makeup of pages on-the-fly for blind users, or another Jakob Nielsen will rise to power and make a lot of money.
Re:Disabled people (Score:2)
Edward Burr
Blindness (Score:2)
But how would you convert a Powerpoint demonstration to one of these technologies? Or a gif with text in it? Can you?
--------
Carmack is an elitist, pseudonerd bastard.
MY EMAIL address OOPS Re:Here's a possible answer: (Score:2)
email victor at ripal.co.il
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Depends ... (Score:2)
The simplest thing might be to generate a set of parallel pages which are oriented to those with various disabilities.
This might be far easier than trying to do a combo page. And once a template is set up, you might be able to set up a script for bulk conversions. It would probably be less effort to correct a bunch of text oriented pages which are 90 -95% compliant then to re-design everything from scratch.
Re:Depends ... (Score:2)
The idea is that with such a standardized scheme, a script for bulk conversion becomes much easier, since the name and location and function of the page is related to the metatags or whatever in the file itself.
Just my two bits.
of course, for pages generated via CGI, php, etc., a different approach is needed, but you still might be able to script the conversion, depending on the original design.
If the design is basically AdHoc with no naming conventions and lots of inconsistent setups (with bazillions of cgi scripts, etc for lots of funky sites)...
Well, you may have a problem.
It could become a problem similar to the Y2K issue. You would have to re-write everything.
Re:Wow, you really DO have a problem (Score:2)
Well, we know we want to make the building layout accessible to all users and we know that plain text is accessible to all users (since blind users can use a screen reader). Therefore, the obvious solution is...
You are standing in the first floor hallway of the Applied Research Center. To your north is room L117. To your south is room L110. The hallway continues east and west.
> n
You are standing in room L117. On one side of the room is a fume hood made by Thin Films Technology. Standing here is Prof. Mool Gupta.
> say Natalie Portman rulez!!!
Prof. Gupta mutters something about idiot Slashdot trolls. He pushes a button on his desk. Moments later, security guards arrive and escort you out of the building.
You are standing outside the main entrance to the Applied Research Center. The lobby is to your southwest.
> sw
The security guard pulls out a gun and shoots you. Your body is never found. Your score is -1 out of 5. This gets you a rating of "Lame Troll". Play again? (y/n)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Disabled people (Score:2)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Wow, you really DO have a problem (Score:2)
When it involves the government, why must people always used the most screwed up logic?
I for one, always run to the nearest web browser when I hear a fire alarm. RIIIIGGGHHHTT. Come on... all public buildings already have fire safety measures for disabled people, modern ones include rescue areas for each floor for people in wheelchairs, and braille/big red signs, guiding you to them.
-
Re:Wow, you really DO have a problem (Score:2)
-
Re:Why worry so much? (Score:2)
Well, considering that about 50% of the population has an IQ under 100, should we design all sites dumbed down so that these borderline retards can read it?
Depending on your view of intelligence, most people say that it is a fixed factor, after childhood, therefore, these people must be in the same situation as disabled people. Your logic kind of breaks down.
-
Difficulties involved. (Score:2)
Anyhow, I know one of the things they require is placing "ALT" tags for images. This would be a major undertaking for any medium to large website that didn't place ALT tags initially, at least to place relevant ALT tags on IMG's. Maybe you could follow the "letter of the law" by just putting the same ALT tag on all images on the site?
We love ALT tags. The Linux Pimp [thelinuxpimp.com]
Tools (Score:2)
This could be used to cull the pages that are already acceptable.
Re:Do Some More Research (Score:2)
"However, even though section 508's enforcement mechanisms apply only to procurement, the law does require access to technology developed, used or maintained by a Federal agency."
I will try and find the document but I have seen a document which specifies that the twenty most visited pages on every federal website must be compliant six months after the final standards were published.
First stop: the Web Accessibility Inititative (Score:3)
You do have a lot of work ahead of you. It's much easier to start with accesibility in mind than to retro-fit everything. You might be able to script some of it, as others are suggesting, but your first step should be to thorougly familiarize yourself with the information at the WAI.
TomatoMan
Re:Nonsense (Score:3)
First of all, there was no such thing as "HTML 1".
HTML 4 Strict is useful even for "plain pages" because it provides style sheet hooks (CLASS [htmlhelp.com] and ID [htmlhelp.com] attributes), internationalization (LANG [htmlhelp.com] and DIR [htmlhelp.com] attributes, BDO [htmlhelp.com] element, entities [htmlhelp.com] for characters such as the euro), as well as useful new elements like ABBR [htmlhelp.com] and ACRONYM [htmlhelp.com] that allow you to give the long form of the abbreviation through the TITLE [htmlhelp.com] attribute.
HTML 4 Strict also adds accessibility aids such as the LABEL [htmlhelp.com] element for indicating the text associated with a form control.
Web sites don't rely on one sense (Score:3)
Web sites don't rely on one sense over another unless they've been written poorly. A well-written Web site will adapt seamlessly to any display device, whether it's your 21" monitor, your PalmPilot, or your speech browser.
Of course most Web sites are written poorly, so now you have to fix the mess. Good luck.
Have a look at the W3C [w3.org]'s Web Accessibility Initiative [w3.org] for some guidelines and techniques.
A possible plan (Score:3)
Why worry so much? (Score:3)
It seems to me as though this is a piece of legislation that has been passed to make people happy rather than to actually be implemented in full. Sure you should make some of your more critical web pages compliant, but if I were you I'd prepare a time study detailing exactly how long it'll take you to get all these changes implemented, and watch how fast they decide it falls into an "Undue Burden" category...
If you really need to do so at some later point it can be done then, but as it is it's a lot of effort for no real gain. This sounds harsh, but sometimes it's just not worth the time to cater for such a small part of your audience - just look at how many sites are giving up on supporting Netscape because it's dead and there's so little point in spending the time to keep a site compliant for different audiences...
Wow, you really DO have a problem (Score:4)
However, each one of these pages alone represents a true barrier to the handicapped. For example, if a visually impaired user heard the fire alarm, and navigated to the Jlab web site in order to find their way out of the building, one can just imagine their screams of fright when they realize that their only resource is a JPEG. Oh, the horror. If only the web designers had thought ahead, and planned for these kinds of circumstances, death could have been avoided.
Sarcasm aside, man, you really do have a heck of a case for the undue burden clause. A lot of the stuff on this site is frills. (An image of each building?) You could indeed make them more accessible, or you could just plain delete them. I love the site, you're doing a great job of disseminating information, but some of that stuff just isn't necessary for the outside world to see over the internet, is it?
Re:Nonsense (Score:4)
Just because you can create a five-minute Flash flyover of Washington D.C. to play before anyone can get into your site does not mean you should.
Practical advice from someone who's doing it (Score:4)
I am currently working on a US government web site. (OK, it's a state web site, but they are holding us to the federal rules because they know they're next...) Here's some practical advice:
It's not rocket science once you know what you're doing. Personal anecdote: I applied the same principles to my own web site, even though I didn't have to and my friends told me I was wasting my time because "nobody uses Lynx anymore." In the first week, I got 10 Lynx visitors.
-M
You're smart; what haven't you learned Python yet? http://diveintopython.org/ [diveintopython.org]
Re:Disabled people (Score:4)
I don't see any reason that we shouldn't have to customize websites for persons with disabilities.
I can.
A properly-designed web site does not need any customization for persons with disabilities.
A web site which is not universally accessible is an indication of gross incompetence on the part of its designer.
Obviously, not every adornment and photo needs to be described in painstaking detail. But - and this is particularly important on government sites, which exist to make important information available to the public - there should be no frivolous impediments to the transmission of information. And this goes from Day One.
A couple years ago I was with a government agency which, to its credit, decided to get an early move on this and get all its pages accessible.
It was a tremendously valuable project, because running all the pages through Bobby and other validators not only highlighted the pointless inaccessiblities that riddled the web site, but called attention to all the other coding errors and other latent problems lying beneath the surface.
It also made it very clear which of the web developers knew what they were doing, and which were utterly useless goldbrickers, tossing together nonsense using FrontPage when they had claimed to know HTML.
Many of these same people thought it was impossible to have pages that are visually engaging and accessible at the same time. This is precisely because they did not know HTML, and thought that the only things that could show up on the web were the fetid oozings from the back end of FrontPage and its ilk.
So, here's the Rapid Accessibility plan:
Re:Why worry so much? (Score:5)
All that has happened is that they're having their hands slapped for being so *stupid* as to design the site so that the "This Page Best Viewed Using MSIE" warning had to be used.
If they'd stuck to the damn *standards*, they'd never have encountered this problem.
Now that they're forced to be smart, the web pages will be viewable not only by disabled-friendly browsers (browsers that provide 500x zoom for the visually impaired; browsers that will read the content to the blind; browsers that will send output to a braille interface), but the pages will also be viewable to people using Palm Pilots, Netscape, Lynx and any other browser.
So what's it gonna take? Not a whole helluva lot: get rid of browser-specific tagging. Get rid of frames. Add ALT text to all images. Provide text descriptions of any animations/Flash/videos.
In other words, they have to do all the things they *SHOULD* have been doing, right from day one.
--
Can't feel sorry for ya (Score:5)
Go spend an afternoon browsing through the W3C archives, useit.com, and htmlhelp.com and when you realize that this is nothing new but rather exactly what those with clear vision have been advocating since the dawn of the web maybe you'll just have to crawl back to your post and do your job properly.
Do Some More Research (Score:5)
1. Most of the regs, refered to as Section 508 are really just good coding practice (like using alt tags on web sites.)
2. Any disabled person could have sue you since 197X under the ADA and force you to be accessible, you should have been thinking about this all along.
3. This regulation appliies to everything IT related, not just web pages.
Here's a possible answer: (Score:5)
The standards don't aim at eliminating graphics and animations, but <quoting> Generally, this means use of text labels or descriptors for graphics and certain format elements. (HTML code already provides an "Alt Text" tag for graphics which can serve as a verbal descriptor for graphics). This section also addresses the usability of multimedia presentations, image maps, style sheets, scripting languages, applets and plug-ins, and electronic forms </quoting>
What if the whole site were transformed into text which could then be read aloud?
IBM's WebSphere Transcoding Publisher was designed as a helper to servers for wireless devices, because it takes normal websites and transforms the *ml into something a wireless devices' browser can handle. It does this on the fly with little or no performance hit, changing sites to text, to voice, resizing and altering images for whatever device you may be browsing from.
In this case, it could transcode a normal website like yours into VoiceML and be read aloud, or into text and be read using the blind users' screen reader. You wouldn't have to redesign anything about your site, except to ensure that disabled users got the properly transcoded site.
It really appears to me as though Transcoding Publisher running on your server would solve your problems.
Look at http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/transcod
and http://www.research.ibm.com/networked_data_system
email me if you want to talk more about it.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close