Web Directions

Derek Featherstone – Accessibility 2.0, Where do we go from here?

• In: notes
• By:Andrew
• September 28, 2006
• Leave a response

where are we right now

Checklist syn­drome – Section 508, WCAG, IBM Web Accessibility. These lead to a mind­set of com­pli­ance over any­thing else. Accessibility is not just a tech­ni­cal endeav­our or a qual­ity assur­ance process. In real­ity acces­si­bil­ity is about remov­ing bar­ri­ers; it is personal.

Derek demon­strates a ‘typ­i­cal’ search bar – men­tions that it is the most dif­fi­cult one he has ever worked with. Contains search input, pre-​​populated with Search Terms, Go but­ton, Advanced Search but­ton and Quick Links select box. Discusses the poten­tial prob­lems caused by using JavaScript to remove default text in text input boxes – don’t remove text unless it is the default text; this con­fuses every­one, not just assis­tive device users.

Compares ask­ing What is the biggest fail­ing in acces­si­bil­ity? with ask­ing What is the mean­ing of life?; both result in an end­less stream of dif­fer­ent answers.

New ways of access­ing web based con­tent are cre­at­ing new prob­lems in accessibility.

What if screen­read­ers rec­og­nized micro­for­mats – plays audio demo of JAWs pro­vid­ing a page out­line review con­tain­ing 4 events and 3 con­tacts along with the nor­mal header count and link count.

Where can inter­ac­tion design­ers go for inspi­ra­tion? Gamers? Gamers have insane key­boards with a plethora of extra keys and key bindings.

Notifying assis­tive device users of notable change is very dif­fi­cult and needs to be addressed. Campfire pro­vides an audi­ble ping to notify browser users of missed messages.

Derek shows a rip­pled, dark path­way that leads through a cafe­te­ria; real-​​world exam­ples of pro­vid­ing high con­trast to guide people.

Discusses his addic­tion to his BlackBerry mobile device — People make fun of me ‘cause I sleep with my BlackBerry

Research in Motion have filed a patent to make an acces­si­ble ver­sion of the BlackBerry. Includes the abil­ity to have user defined acces­si­bil­ity fea­tures – screen mag­ni­fi­ca­tion (con­trolled by thumb­wheel); audio inter­face for announc­ing icons, con­tacts etc out loud. Adding touch-​​screen for the dex­ter­ity impaired; will include on-​​screen keyboard.

There is a lack of under­stand­ing of the needs of peo­ple with cog­ni­tive disabilities.

Derek shows screen cap­ture of using BaseCamp with a voice-​​controlled browser. Shows the prob­lems with access­ing check­boxes which can be solved by refresh­ing the page. Whose fault is the problem?

Demonstration using a voice con­trolled mouse. This is obvi­ously dif­fi­cult, impre­cise and highly frustrating.

Web 2.0 is all the web sites out there that get their value from the actions of their users

Can Web 2.0 help?

Tagging – tag movies that are acces­si­ble. Tag quick­time files, flash videos etc rather than just tag­ging a page. Tagging a page is just point­ing at a URL and assign­ing key­words, why not directly tag a resource?

Expands upon Kelly’s True Gravatar con­cept from keynote – global XFN pro­file, rather than enter­ing it again and again (con​nec​tions​.web​di​rec​tions​.org, flickr con­tacts, linkedIn, etc). Why not let peo­ple define their own accesskeys in a glob­ally avail­able pro­file; what about let­ting them define styling pref­er­ences in the same way? (eg: 1 col­umn vs. 3 column).

Proposes advanced con­fig­u­ra­tion in browsers – if you’re always bump­ing up the font size on a par­tic­u­lar site, why shouldn’t the browser just make it the default for that site?

Your opinion: