- From: M Chamlee <developer@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:31:22 -0400
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
As a commercial designer, I want to be able to provide high-end graphics for viewers with graphically enhanced browsers. At the same time, I like the idea of providing content in the code that allows visually impaired visitors to use the site and get a full understanding of the content through extra textual explanation. The following are two suggestions I have for improving the integration of such practices into modern graphically enhanced layouts. The problem with the current ALT attribute for graphics is that it shows up as an onmouseover effect in many graphic browsers, and can cover or distract from the usability of graphic navigation on the page. If I want to give a fully-functional explanation of the graphic that will be legitimately useful to a visitor who does not see the graphic(s), the explanation itself ends up being condescending or redundant to graphic users because this distracting provision of alt tag information cannot be separated from the graphic browser versions due to the onmouseover display of alt information on top of the graphic. It would be great to have an image attribute that is specifically designed to provide an explanation of the graphic to disabled visitors without having the attribute adhere to traditional duties of the alt tag as a placeholder while images load. How about ... img src="pic.png" DISCRIPTION="image of a woman sitting at a computer with mainframe servers in the background" ... It seems like a logical way to separate the two current functions of the alt tag, while still providing the traditional ALT tag use for images that need it, such as images targeting audiences of slow speed connections or images that purposely use the alt pop-up in graphic browsers to provide information in the onmouseover effect. It's important to note that the viewer of the graphic browser who has images turned off or who is waiting for the images to load is a different audience from the user who is read the contents of the page through a screen reader. Much of the bad reception by designers to additional usability cues for images hinges on this alt tag onmouseover display. Many of us agree that the implementation of a "screenreader only" tag would likely result in more widespread use by commercial designers and would help us design more sensible screenread pages. The second suggestion stems from the need for additional content within text and text links. Once again, a sighted user with a graphic browser can have and will expect to have a visual page that is optimized for all the other additional cues in a graphic layout. Even the phrasing of text links in a menu may differ depending on if the structural layout of the page can be viewed and is familiar. Pages read in a linear fashion lose this insight and so must be made up for in more textually descriptive link names and text information. Ignoring these differing properties of content display ignores one audience or the other, and in a commercial project, designers are not allowed to ignore the most widespread display mechanisms in use -graphic browsers. I'm not sure -and I'd like to know- what the convention is for commenting. I'm guessing commented information in an html page does not show up in screen readers, and I'm not suggesting it should. However, it would be incredibly useful to have a comment-like tag that is only picked up and read by the screenreader, but remains hidden in the source code away from the graphic browser. The easiest way I can think of to implement this is to create a tag that a screenreader will recognize within commented out html portions and then display that tag content as non-commented material. How about <!-- <SCREENREAD> The product is a cylinder with bored holes on the sides for an industrial feel. It has curves that give a better grip than our competitor's flat circular disk shape. </SCREENREAD> --> While this information could be put in the normal page text, in an effective commercial site there would likely already have been an image giving this description visually and so the information would have been redundant to a sighted user. The image may also have been placed somewhere in the layout that made visual sense to a sighted visitor, but the description is more coherent in the text somewhere else on the page for the screen-read visitor. In text links, something like this would be useful: <a href="link.php" SCREENNAME="Apply to receive brochure">Apply Now!</A> Once again, the graphic positioning on the page would have provided enough additional navigation cues to the sighted visitor to allow for the "apply now" to be self evident as tied to the brochure offered. When screenread it may not be, and such a tag would help make the connection much more assured for a screen-read visitor. I hope these suggestions provide useful topics in the attempt to create usable layouts for screen-read as well as sighted visitors. -Melody Chamlee
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 07:31:30 UTC