- From: Steven McCaffrey <SMCCAFFR@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:02:52 -0400
- To: bkdelong@naw.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
A very interesting discussion. I am a senior programmer/analyst with the New York State Department of Education, am blind and use one of the latest versions of a screen review program. First, I strongly agree with "the Page AuthoringGuidelines really go over how to make your Web site more accessible without having to completely sacrifice design...or maintain a completely seperate text page. When Web developers hear accessibility, they think work. If you think about it, it really isn't. If you're Web site is HTML 4.0 compliant....then you're most of the way there to being Accessible." I would just like to add my voice to these excellent points. Yesterday, I gave a short demonstration of speech output technology for the blind and made some comments about making accessible web sites. The audience was a government office. The overall point was that there are no generalizations worth stating. Some content is made accessible more easily than other content, and, as you indicate, there are variables such as user agents and authoring tools. However, it is really not very difficult to make most web sites/documents accessible. If someone asks me how to make a site accessible to blind persons, my first question is what assumptions are being made with regard to the following: 1) browser (and version) 2) adaptive technology a. braille displays b. screen review programs 3) Knowledge of the consumer (web page visitor) a. Some screen review programs have advanced features which, if used, could be the difference between some specific presentation method (e.g. tables) being accessible or not. Are you assuming the average visitor has the appropriate knowledge? 4) meaning of accessibility of your content a. degree of ease of access to types of content a.1 forms a.2 tables a.3 pictures, graphs, charts ... Note that, in my view, discussion about access to content cannot begin until 1), 2), and 3) are answered. The following questions are for clarification purposes only and are not criticisms of any kind. It is important to keep the discussion positive while precisely describing the issues in a systematic, "top-down" manner, fleshing out the details as needed. I am simply interested in the overall process involved. Is HTML 4.0 compliance backward compatible? That is, if I have an HTML 4.0 compliant site, is it accessible to blind persons using earlier versions of web browsers and screen review programs for example? Are there any empirical data on just what browser/adaptive-technology combinations are being used? If the answer to this latter question is "No", what assurance does a site/document designer have as to its accessibility? ------ Steven McCaffrey Information Technology Services NYSED (518)-473-3453 >>> "B.K. DeLong" <bkdelong@naw.org> 09/29 5:08 PM >>> Very interesting sentiments, Kynn. I spent a good portion of last week sitting at a booth at Web '98. I coordinated, planed, and managed an event for Web Accessibility and the Web Standards Project. If I let myself be discouraged, I could easily be because we didn't have nearly as many people as I had hoped at either event. But, I managed to have Web Standards Project brochures at every non-profit's booth (ACM, WOW, AIP, WITI, CPSR, and Webgrrls) as well as a huge stack of W3C sheets talking about the Web Accessibility Initiative and their Page Authoring Guidelines. When I'd feel my audience slipping from our organization, I would jump in really quick about the other two efforts. Every time I saw someone from an educational institution, government organization, or military installation, I mentioned the 1996 US DOJ ruling about how Web sites of public libraries, colleges and universities, state, federal, or local government organizations AND- this one got them- almost everyone who has a government contract need to be compliant with Title II and III of the ADA, EVERYONE was interested. I ran out of information sheets and people requested I e-mail them the URL for the page authoring guidelines. Plus, I explained to all other Web developers that the Page Authoring Guidelines really go over how to make your Web site more accessible without having to completely sacrifice design...or maintain a completely seperate text page. When Web developers hear accessibility, they think work. If you think about it, it really isn't. If you're Web site is HTML 4.0 compliant....then you're most of the way there to being Accessible. Also, I think we should follow the good ideas of the Web Standards Project. They are going after the "user agent" and "authoring tool" manufacturers, having them make it so Web sites are more accessible. If we convince the Web developing public that this is a good cause, (as the WSP has convinced them.....), then they will fully support Web accessibility. It's just a matter of figuring out how to push people's buttons and how to get them going. Don't get discouraged. If people like you who are working so hard for the cause lose faith....then so will everyone else. Keep up the excellent work. -- B.K. DeLong 360 Huntington Ave. Director Suite 140SC-305 New England Chapter Boston, MA 02115 World Organization (617) 247-3753 of Webmasters http://www.world-webmasters.org bkdelong@naw.org
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 1998 10:06:34 UTC