W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-comments@w3.org > April to June 2016

AW: Call for Review: Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision

From: Wolfgang Berndorfer <wolfgang.berndorfer@zweiterblick.at>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:38:04 +0200
To: <public-Low-Vision-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "'Batusic, Mario'" <mario.batusic@fabasoft.com>
Message-ID: <E1aqSUj-0005g6-4s@lisa.w3.org>
Hi!

Thank you for this excellent collection! Here some additional considerations. The order is accidentally and not weighted.

1. “Low Vision”

I’m astonished that the requirements are intended to improve design for “People with Low Vision”, while all people benefit in special situations from a good visibility. I would propose to call the task force and the document “Visibility Requirements” or just “Visability”. But I’m realistic enough not to expect that you rename the child ;-).

I generally don’t use the term “Low Vision” any more, although I know that even the WHO uses it. It has the touch of deficit orientation, while the effort should be optimization of the visual capacities (Make the best out of it). This implies:

•	Get the necessary equipment.
•	Learn adequate techniques.
•	Get an accessible surrounding.

2. “electronic”

Is there a reason, why you use the term “electronic content” and not “digital content“? Spontaneously I associate hardware with the term “electronic”, while the document is all about software.

3. Local adaptation in the retina
It’s just my suspicion: But perhaps you know the devilish black painting and when you look at it for a minute and then look at a white wall, you have the impression that Jesus comes out of the wall. A similar effect is that when you look at a blue area for some time and then look at a white wall, the wall will first seem yellow, as far as you are color sighted.

The reason for these effects is that not only the pupil has influence on the perception of brightness, but there is also a local adaptation in the retina. Seems the sensory cells have some kind of expectation for brightness.

As a consequence I tend to use within a website either brighter background and dark text or the other way round. But I don’t know about any scientific researches to my suspicion or manifestly explained problems. 
Anyway, if my suspicion is right, this could be a complementary issue for 2.4.

4. Photos

Is there a reason, why you don’t mention recommendations for the design of Photos? For diagrams and similar graphics you can apply many of the themes relevant for text (font, contrast, …). But there are some things that make photos easier to see:

•	Choose your segment well! If you want to portrait a person, make a head shot and not a picture of the person walking to his or her office.
•	Take care of good contrast on your photo! In times of black and white photography lightning, dressing and lipstick were applied very carefully.
•	Offer relevant photos in HD by clicking on “View photo on full screen”.
5. Different Look of Regions
I work with magnification software (Zoomtext) and find it very fine, when regions look different while using the Zoom Mode.

When I visit a website, I first try to get a visual and semantic overview without zooming. What is where on the site and how does it appear? I can’t read the text, but I see for instance, that the main navigation is on the left side with links on grey background. Complementary infos are on yellow background and the Content Info on the bottom is on light green background.

When zooming, I then have a better orientation, where I am going around. When for instance on the bottom of my zoom screen a light green area appears, I know that I have reached the end of the main content.

Websites, where everything looks the same are harder to navigate for me. This is also one of many reasons, why I don’t advise to use the Windows Contrast Mode: Everything looks the same and possibly helpful use of color for elements is no longer available. 

For the same reason alternative Stylesheets for Websites should not be just white on black.

6. Orthography
Take care of a correct orthography! It is very important for legibility. Writing in dialect expressions or generally in lowercase letters and similar gags off habit disturb the reading process.
Solely lowercase letters are more relevant in German and other languages than in English.
(Add to 3.3.4)

7. Priorities (Conformance to Success Criteria)
„About this Draft“
“It does not set priorities on issues.”

Why? Everybody responsible for Websites with a heart and a head for accessibility needs priorities. 
And criteria for priorities can be found:
•	Frequency of needs.
•	Severity of needs.

8. Proposal for Wording
„2.1 Scope of Low Vision“

“In considering user needs, this document uses a broad scope of low vision to include all visual impairments except significant blindness — including impairments from aging, “color blindness”, and impairments that are often categorized as legally blind yet people have sufficient vision to see user interfaces in some situations.”

 “… people have sufficient vision to recognize display informations with adequate visual frameworks.”

9. Gendering
Avoid gender non-discriminating texting or wording where possible, when it disturbs the legibility.

Example:

“The doctor should not patronize the patient. He or she should remember his / her own experiences as patient himself / herself.”
Better:
“Doctors should not patronize patients. They should remember their own experiences as patient themselves.”
Notes:
•	In German the legibility is more often a problem in this issue than in English.
•	Avoiding complicate texting is also extremely necessary for users of Screen Readers.

10. No Responsibility and no Requirements What?

“This document does not specify responsibility for meeting user needs, and it does not set technical requirements.”
What do you mean with this and why do you think it is necessary? 

11. Typing Error?
This should probably mean “Verdana” in 3.3.2:
“Veranda”
Seems that listening to speech offers sometimes more than visual reading?

12. Implementation in Web
I’m afraid that the implementation of your report won’t be too enthusiastic. But I think that your document can become a significant anchor for motivated projects.

I hope that my explanations are understandable and helpful! 

Thanks to Mario Batusic, who informed me about this project a few days ago! I only had two evenings time to read and reflect it. So I could not read all additional information.

Wolfgang Berndorfer
______________________________________________

Zweiter Blick - Für ein barrierefreies Web

Mag. Wolfgang Berndorfer

Akademischer Experte für Barrierefreies Webdesign

A-6020 Innsbruck, Schidlachstr. 9/3

T: +43 (0) 512 / 560 568

M: +43 (0) 664 / 734 934 05

wolfgang.berndorfer@zweiterblick.at

http://www.zweiterblick.at 

 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Batusic, Mario [mailto:mario.batusic@fabasoft.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 08. April 2016 13:08
An: Wolfgang Berndorfer (wolfgang.berndorfer@bsvt.at)
Betreff: WG: Call for Review: Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision

Hallo Wolfgang,

Schau Dir mal den neusten Entwurf der W3C/WAI über die Barrierefreihet für Sehbehinderte und kommentiere, was Du glaubst dass verbessert gehört.

Ciao     Mario
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Shawn Henry [mailto:shawn@w3.org] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. März 2016 14:17
An: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Betreff: Call for Review: Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision

Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

The W3C WAI invites you to comment on the First Public Working Draft of Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision at:
      https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/

Overview:
This document describes what people with low vision need for electronic content, tools, and technologies to be accessible. It includes an overview of low vision and describes specific user needs. It does not set technical requirements. It provides the background for planned future work on guidance for making web content, tools, and technologies accessible to people with low vision.

Draft:
This draft provides the overall framework and approach planned for this document. Additional information and specific questions for review are in the Status section at:
      https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/#sotd

Comments:
We welcome comments *by 15 April 2016*
via e-mail to public-Low-Vision-comments@w3.org or the GitHub repository: https://github.com/w3c/Low-Vision-a11y-tf.
Please create separate GitHub issues or pull requests for each comment, rather than combining multiple comments together.

Background:
Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision is developed by the Low Vision Accessibility Task Force (LVTF) of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The Task Force home page is: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Low-Vision-a11y-tf/

If you are interesting in contributing to this work as a participant of the Low Vision Accessibility Task Force, please read https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/#participation

URI:
The first URI above goes to the latest version of the document. The "dated" version of this draft is: <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-low-vision-needs-20160317/> The difference between these URIs are explained in Referencing and Linking to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents at: <https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html>

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your comments.
Feel free to circulate this message to other lists; please avoid cross-postings where possible.

Regards,
Shawn Henry, WAI Outreach and W3C Staff Contact Jim Allan and Andrew Kirkpatrick, Task Force Facilitators Michael Cooper, WCAG WG W3C Staff Contact


--
<http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:27:30 UTC