- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 11:40:19 -0400
- To: Peter Verhoeven <pav@oce.nl>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hi Peter, The particular page you point out www.postbank.nl, where the image is too large for your screen, and you can't scroll because it's in a frame without scroll bars, and if you try to pop up the frame in a new window it just takes you back to the original inaccessible page.... Turns out the reason the frame can't be loaded in a new window doesn't seem to have to do with ASP. It seems the reason is that the frame itself has the following javascript in the head if (parent.frames.length == 0) parent.location.href = "/home/1,3000,,FF.html"; In other words, if it isn't framed, it resets itself to the original page. Cute. So if you turn off Javascript you are able to see the frame itself, as I verfied at low screen resolution. However, you then have to turn javascript on again to use at least some of the links in the frame. And if I had explored more maybe I would have hit another catch-22. This is not a terrific user experience. But it can help us come up with tools that potentially spot and repair this kind of thing. Thanks again for opening up this topic. Len p.s. I guess another way around this is to use high screen resolution and a screen magnifier, like Zoomtext etc.. But then you wind up doing a lot of scrolling left and right, even for pages which would normally behave themselves. Is that why you prefer to set screen resolution and fonts instead of using a screen magnifier program? Are there other reasons also? Well, hmm, cost of course. And unavailability at public locations. Any others? At 03:58 PM 5/2/00 +0200, Peter Verhoeven wrote: >Hi Len, > >Thank you very much for your quick reply and summary. >What I and most low vision do is define their onw font size and style. I >always use font size 12 and font style arial and at my work place I have >always my computer on a 640x480 pixels. If you go to www.postbank.nl >(sorry it is Dutch) you see that all the problems come together and it >is realy impossible to read information. Another problem is, that >sometimes loading a page in frames constuction in a new seperate window >is disable by use of ASP. If I try to load the page in a new window >without frames I get the same frame constuction back. >I think a lot of these problems can be solved by including more option >in the browser. I'm not interesting in nice web design or creative >graphical designs. I'm interesting in information on web pages. So if a >word is too long for the specified table cell. Don't make the cell and >the table width longer, but brake the owrd in two pieces (if I want >that). >A lot of people define a table with a width of 640. Than have a column >of 200 and 400 and place a banner of width 480 pixels in the column of >440? >I think in such a situation the web designer makes a mistake and he or >she must be punished for such a mistake. So make the image smaller. but >why browser also make the width of table longer? > >Text on images indedd is also often an big problem. Also if there ia an >ALT tag. Alt tags doesn't help users with screen magnifiers with high >magnification level and no speech not a lot, because the popup window is >mostly much large than the magnified view so impossible to read. > >Regards Peter Verhoeven >Internet : http://www.magnifiers.org (the Screen Magnifiers Homepage) > > >"Leonard R. Kasday" wrote: > > > > Peter, > > > > Thank you for bringing up those extra points. You're right, we need to pay > > more attention to partial sight (a.k.a. low vision). By the way, even > > though I don't have low vision, I run into these sorts of problems > > sometimes with popup boxes. > > > > So lets summarize your points for low vision: > > > > 1. Optimally, users should be able to have scrollbars even if the web page > > turns them off. > > 2. Until browsers do (1), pages should never turn off scrollbars. > > 3. Table dimensions should be expressed as percentages, not absolute units. > > 4. Avoid using images wider than N pixels (what's a good value for N?) > > > > to which I'd add > > 5. If you use style sheets for layout, avoid specifications which cause > > objects to overlap each other when font size is increased. > > 6. Whenever feasible, display text in such a way that it wraps sensibly > > when font size is increased. > > 7. Use real text, not images of text, so that user preferences in color, > > font, and size may be used. > > > > Len > > > > p.s. > > I'm actually more familiar with the term "low vision" than "partial > > sight". Is the term "partial sight" more used in Europe? > > > > At 09:36 AM 5/2/00 +0200, Peter Verhoeven wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >This is not the first time that I bring up this point, but because I got > > >less responce here a new try. > > > > > >The WAI often mentions numbers of people that having problems accessing > > >web pages of the Internet. I often read the number 10 million. Are those > > >10 million people blind? No, they are not blind at all. A lot of them > > >are sight impaired which is not the same. > > >In the "quick tips" I read only tips to make web pages accessible to > > >blind, or maybe to make web pages accessible by using Lynx? If I check > > >web pages with real accessibility problems for sight impaired with > > >Bobby, it tells me Congratulations your web page is Bobby Appoved. I > > >only need to do some manual checking, but all these checkpoints have > > >nothing to do with things like universal design and color contrast. > > > > > >A growing number of web pages are designed "system dependent" that > > >means, that if I don't have a special display resolution or font size > > >setting a lot of information on the web pages is outside my screen and > > >the only way to access is to track on bars. > > >Some web designers don't like trackbars and disable them, so it becomes > > >realy impossible to get some information on the page. But the page is > > >Bobby approved (Congratulations!). > > > > > >In the statistics from visitors to my web site The Screen Magnifiers > > >Homepage at http://www.magnifiers.org I see that 25% of my visitors have > > >a display resolution of 640x480. We as sight impaired use this > > >resolution often because the the text on hte screen is much lagere than > > >in a higher resolution and setting a high resolution means that you need > > >a more powerful system with more memory to let a screen magnifier > > >performs well. > > > > > >A lot of these problems occurs in table and frames constructions and > > >personaly I know it is often difficult to solve these problems also if > > >you specified a table width of 640. If an image inside the table is > > >larger than 640 or a word in a cell is larger the width of the table > > >increases. A lot of web designers don't want to use percentages for > > >defining table widh, because the lines of text becomes so long if > > >someone has set a high display resolution. The problem "long line" seems > > >to have a higher priority than "horizontal scrollbars". > > > > > >In my opinion a lot of these problems could be solved by the makers of > > >browsers. > > >In my opinion more attention is needed for accessibility problems that > > >partially sighted have? > > > > > >Regards Peter Verhoeven > > > > -- > > Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. > > Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and > > Department of Electrical Engineering > > Temple University > > 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > kasday@acm.org > > http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday > > > > (215) 204-2247 (voice) > > (800) 750-7428 (TTY) -- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and Department of Electrical Engineering Temple University 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122 kasday@acm.org http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 11:39:42 UTC