RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call

Responding to the example that prompted Yvette's suggestion (I hadn't
seen the example when I responded to Ineke's message):

<blockquote>
I have another counter-example:
http://www.stichtingmeerzicht.nl/index2.htm

This is a website from a Dutch foundation that works for the blind. In
my personal opinion, they did everything someone without knowledge about
web accessibility would do to make their website accessible, making a
lot of beginner mistakes. One of the problems is that they created
spoken versions of their buttons that are spoken out loud on mouse-over
(they cannot receive keyboard focus), interfering with screen readers.
However, since not many blind people will use a mouse, I guess that's
not really a problem though but the spoken text is not available for the
intended audience. There's also no way to turn it the speech off, and
sometimes the text continues to be read after you select something else,
so two voices are reading at once.

If we do want a success criterion about spoken versions of text, I think
we should include that it has to be the user's choice, i.e.: "The user
can select a spoken version of text content" or something similar.
</blockquote>

Again, I agree that users should have the *choice* of whether to hear
text content. And they should be able to turn off the speech at any time
instead of having to listen to the entire page whether they want to or
not!

But the fact that the Web site you mention above does a poor job of
implementing existing accessibility guidelines isn't necessarily an
argument against a success criterion.  There are thousands of sites that
have terrible alt text for their images, but that's not a reason to
strike down the requirement to provide alt text.

It's certainly true that implementing our success criteria *correctly*
should not create accessibility barriers!

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yvette Hoitink
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:28 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call



Ineke van der Maat wrote:

> hello John,
> 
> You wrote:
> Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC7
> 
> A spoken version of text content is available.
> 
> 
> HHmm ... http://www.bonn.de has a spoken version produced by
> a voice service in Sweden... the spoken German is so bad that 
> disability organisations complain.. but they offer an spoken 
> version as required in these guidelines..

I have another counter-example:
http://www.stichtingmeerzicht.nl/index2.htm

This is a website from a Dutch foundation that works for the blind. In
my personal opinion, they did everything someone without knowledge about
web accessibility would do to make their website accessible, making a
lot of beginner mistakes. One of the problems is that they created
spoken versions of their buttons that are spoken out loud on mouse-over
(they cannot receive keyboard focus), interfering with screen readers.
However, since not many blind people will use a mouse, I guess that's
not really a problem though but the spoken text is not available for the
intended audience. There's also no way to turn it the speech off, and
sometimes the text continues to be read after you select something else,
so two voices are reading at once.

If we do want a success criterion about spoken versions of text, I think
we should include that it has to be the user's choice, i.e.: "The user
can select a spoken version of text content" or something similar.

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl

Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 17:44:50 UTC