W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

From: Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:16:52 -0600
To: david.bacon@jkd.co.uk, "'Jason Megginson'" <jason@bartsite.com>, "'Scott Luebking'" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <NDBBKJDAKKEJDCICIODLMEOLDLAA.jim@jimthatcher.com>
RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually ImpairedThough
someone claims that this web site was was created for people with
disabilities, I don't believe it. They have done none of the simplest
things, like labeling input elements or alt text on the one or two images
that appear on every page. I believe this is an experiment for a site for
small devices. If it were done for people using screen readers, don't you
think at least the alt text would have been added?

Having said all that, I really like it! There is a feedback link near the
top. Twice I have sent feedback and both times a real person responded with

Accessibility Consulting
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of david.bacon
  Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:16 AM
  To: 'Jason Megginson'; 'Scott Luebking'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

  I thought the label tag ruined layouts in NS6.  I've done a test page with
no style sheets and just a simple form in a table.  When the layout tag was
placed around text it jumped out of the cell and covered the form element in
the adjacent cell.  This bug has been documented and is probably the reason
the label tag is not as widely used as it should be.  After all, a major
flaw in layout takes precedence over accessibilty.

  David Bacon.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jason Megginson [mailto:jason@bartsite.com]
  Sent: 14 December 2001 14:09
  To: 'Scott Luebking'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually

  I found the site to be lacking attributes and tags necessary to be truly
  "accessible".  <Label for=""> and id attributes, for "explicit labeling"
  for instance, are missing.  I agree with David that if they would do it
  right the first time, an alternate site would not be needed.

  Jason Megginson
  Access Technology Specialist
  Bartimaeus Group

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
  Behalf Of Scott Luebking
  Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:56 PM
  To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

  Date:    Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:57:12 +0100
  Subject: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired

  Hello all,

  Do you know that amazon.com has developped a specific version of the
  site for the Visually Impaired ?

  See http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/15199.html for an article
  and http://www.amazon.com/access to reach the site.

  When we saw it we (the usability team) say :

  - oupsss !!! (we provide an ASP software which is able to transform web
  sites in an accessible and personalized way for all the visually
  impaired (including blind and all people who need some visual comfort))

  - great !!! they did a good job and all the pages are designed in the
  good way : no more graphic (but a text only version yet exist), no more
  marketing blabla, search engine in the top and so on...

  We ask on a french list for the blind what they think about this site,
  the way it is designed and is utility... For the moment, we are very
  surprised by the answers ! Blind people do not find it so efficient :
  they have the feeling of a "poor site" and they absolutely dislike that
  there are two versions of the same site : one for "normal" people and
  one for "visually impaired" ! They think designers have to put all their
  efforts in designing one and only one site, and not to make "ghettos"
  for the blind.

  What do you think about that ?  It seems that the text only version is
  preferred because much more informations are presents !
  Someone has tested this version ?
  Is it the better way to improve accessibility (visual accessibility) ?
  And what about the URL ? Is it the good name ?

  Of course, i will try to make a summary to the list of all the answers i
  will get !

  Thank you

  PS : I am french, please excuse my english ! :)


  VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 11:19:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC