- 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