Building Accessible Website

[Csaba Gabor]

Re: Building Accessible Website

> That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
....[color=blue]
> 3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should be
> entirely usable by keyboard alone.
>[/color]
I assume this means that image maps are insufficient. In other words,
there should be an additional means of navigation - yes? Does this also
apply if the purpose of the image map is to identify the coordinates
clicked (e.g. to determine longitude/latitude on a map)?

You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the point
is that even if such functionality is third party provided, can't it be
construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person could
simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable by
keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
another poster mentioned)?

Also, I'm aware of

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm

Is there a site corresponding to the EU version?

Csaba Gabor
PS. The above is not meant to incite. If you are inflamed, please
don't respond because, if there is to be exchange on this topic, I'm
only interested in a dry discussion.

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Building Accessible Website

"Csaba Gabor" <news@CsabaGabo r.com> wrote in
news:4094d6d4@a ndromeda.datane t.hu:
[color=blue]
> You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
> through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
> a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
> I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the
> point is that even if such functionality is third party provided,
> can't it be construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person
> could simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable
> by keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
> another poster mentioned)?[/color]

You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to be
enabled (and, on older versions of Windows, installed). It uses the keys
on the numeric pad to emulate mouse movements. However, using it for
navigation is much slower than proper keyboard navigation would be, so it's
not user-friendly to rely on it for anything except geographic coordinate
picking from server-side imagemaps or similar functions that have no
practical keyboard equivalent.

[Csaba Gabor]

Re: Building Accessible Website

"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earth link.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94DD3F2 E68006ebohlmano msdevcom@130.13 3.1.4...
[color=blue]
> You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to[/color]
be

Thanks for the tip.
[color=blue]
> navigation is much slower than proper keyboard navigation would be, so[/color]
it's[color=blue]
> not user-friendly to rely on it for anything except geographic coordinate
> picking from server-side imagemaps or similar functions that have no
> practical keyboard equivalent.[/color]

Agreed.

[David Dorward]

Re: Building Accessible Website

Csaba Gabor wrote:
[color=blue]
> You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
> through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
> a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard[/color]

That doesn't help much if the user is dependant on a braille output
device :)


--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website

"Csaba Gabor" <news@CsabaGabo r.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:[/color]
>...[color=green]
>> 3. Those who can't use a mouse or other pointing device. A site should be
>> entirely usable by keyboard alone.
>>[/color]
>I assume this means that image maps are insufficient.[/color]

Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of links
is also made available. Client-side image maps are fine as long as
they are marked up correctly with ALT properties, because the UA can
permit cycling through them in the same way as ordinary links. IE and
Mozilla let you tab through the areas of an image map, displaying a
border around each of them as you go. Voice browsers can likewise
include image map areas along with A elements and form fields in the
page navigation cycle.

I just discovered, though, that Opera ignores image maps, which is a
grave deficiency.
[color=blue]
> In other words,
>there should be an additional means of navigation - yes? Does this also
>apply if the purpose of the image map is to identify the coordinates
>clicked (e.g. to determine longitude/latitude on a map)?[/color]

That's a server-side image map, which cannot be accessed with the
keyboard. Either a client-side image map should be used instead, if
possible. Otherwise, an alternative means of entering the same input
by keyboard does need to be provided.
[color=blue]
>
>You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
>through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation?[/color]

Only for moving the active window around on your desktop. That's of no
use within an application.
[color=blue]
> Isn't there
>a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
>I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)? Anyway, the point
>is that even if such functionality is third party provided, can't it be
>construed that a "mouse averse" or "mouse limited" person could
>simulate the use of a mouse, ensuring that any site is navigable by
>keyboard alone (save for time sensitive, etc. types of sites that
>another poster mentioned)?[/color]

Even if such an aid is available and practical to use for those with
limited manual dexterity, it won't suffice overall, because among the
users who can't use a pointing device are the blind. They don't
experience the web page as a two dimensional plane with individually
accessible points, but as a linear stream of verbal content. The
concept of a point on the page just doesn't exist within the framework
of their browsing experience.
[color=blue]
>Also, I'm aware of
>http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm
>Is there a site corresponding to the EU version?[/color]

Jukka Korpela mentioned a few months ago that the EU doesn't have
requirements for accessibility, only recommendations . Sorry, I don't
know where to find them.
[color=blue]
>
>Csaba Gabor
>PS. The above is not meant to incite. If you are inflamed, please
>don't respond because, if there is to be exchange on this topic, I'm
>only interested in a dry discussion.[/color]

I thought your questions were entirely reasonable.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website

Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I just discovered, though, that Opera ignores image maps, which is a
>grave deficiency.[/color]

....by which I mean that Opera excludes image maps from keyboard-based
navigation. They work fine if you click on them.


--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Building Accessible Website

Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of
> links is also made available.[/color]

That means going too far. If there is some functionality that can only
work via a selection of a specific location in an image (say, zooming in
a map), then which one is better:
- nobody can use it, since it has not been implemented, regarding it as
a violation of accessibility
- most people can use it, and the functionality is clearly described,
with its inherent limitations?
On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.
[color=blue]
> Client-side image maps are fine as long
> as they are marked up correctly with ALT properties,[/color]

No, they are not. The major browsers have horrendously poor support to
client-side image maps when image loading is disabled. Check it yourself,
or see http://wwww.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.html

In special cases, a client-side image map could constitute a useful
alternative to a list of links. I'm mainly thinking about real maps, like
selecting a state from the map of the United States, or a country from
the map of Europe. But there might be other cases as well. Anyway, the
image map should be regarded as a secondary alternative, with a list of
links being the real thing, not vice versa.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Stan McCann]

Re: Building Accessible Website

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:[color=blue]
> On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
> server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.[/color]

Absolutely. I once foolishly had a whole navigation menu without any
other means of navigation in a site that I maintain. That was when the
WWW was new and cool. I was trying to have a cool site too. I've
learned a lot since then.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(

http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

[Kris]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <40953c1a$1@new s.zianet.com>,
Stan McCann <stan@surecann. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> That was when the WWW was new and cool.[/color]

You mean, it isn't anymore?

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Re: Building Accessible Website

Eric Bohlman wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Csaba Gabor" <news@CsabaGabo r.com> wrote in
> news:4094d6d4@a ndromeda.datane t.hu:
>[color=green]
>> You know how if, on Windows, you do Alt+space, M(ove) you can,
>> through the arrow keys, simulate a mouse drag operation? Isn't there
>> a similar way to get the mouse to move via the keyboard (I thought
>> I'd seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now)?[/color]
>
> You're thinking of MouseKeys, which is an optional feature that needs to
> be enabled (and, on older versions of Windows, installed). It uses the
> keys on the numeric pad to emulate mouse movements.[/color]

Similar features exist for X Window System servers, however I personally
haven't gotten them to work outside of xf86cfg.
[color=blue]
> However, using it for navigation is much slower than proper keyboard
> navigation would be, so it's not user-friendly to rely on it for anything
> except geographic coordinate picking from server-side imagemaps or similar
> functions that have no practical keyboard equivalent.[/color]

Agreed. Just because it's possible with the keyboard, does not mean it's
easy, or desirable.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[John F. Carr]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <c6trna$fsooa$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
>
>[...]
>
>4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
>used. Simply put, avoid blinking.[/color]

How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?

--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Building Accessible Website

On 03 May 2004 12:31:58 GMT, jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
>>used. Simply put, avoid blinking.[/color]
>
>How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
>configured to blink or animate?[/color]

One of my least favourite offenders: gamesradar.msn. co.uk

and this guy (I do _not_ want that icon anywhere on my LJ)

http://www.livejournal.com/allpics.bml?user=lazrus_armagedn

There's a sizable, and increasing, sector of the population that's
diagnosed as having some form of Asperger's, autistic specturm
disorder or similar. Now such conditions might not make people
susceptible to seizures from a strobo-site, but they certainly cause
cognitive problems.
--
Smert' spamionam

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website


"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns94DDDE4 067424jkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Server-side image maps are forbidden unless an equivalent set of
> > links is also made available.[/color]
>
> That means going too far. If there is some functionality that can only
> work via a selection of a specific location in an image (say, zooming in
> a map), then which one is better:
> - nobody can use it, since it has not been implemented, regarding it as
> a violation of accessibility
> - most people can use it, and the functionality is clearly described,
> with its inherent limitations?
> On the other hand, it is outright foolish to base basic navigation on
> server-side image maps when a simple list of links would do the job fine.
>[color=green]
> > Client-side image maps are fine as long
> > as they are marked up correctly with ALT properties,[/color]
>
> No, they are not. The major browsers have horrendously poor support to
> client-side image maps when image loading is disabled. Check it yourself,
> or see http://wwww.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.html[/color]

I hadn't realized that. Thanks for pointing it out. To the extent that it
matters, though, the problem is with a browser deficiency, not inherent
inaccessibility of the markup. In other words, if the application is one
where it's considered sufficient to add id and header attributes to the TH
and TD tags and say "I'm done", without regard to whether current UAs are
doing anything useful and correct with those attributes, then likewise for
client-side image maps. I'm not saying this to argue one way or another as
to whether client-side image maps are still acceptable, I'm just pointing
out a consideration that can be made. Of course, it's *easy* to provide a
set of text links as well, so there's little reason to argue against it.

What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content? What's the current
browser support for that?
[color=blue]
>
> In special cases, a client-side image map could constitute a useful
> alternative to a list of links. I'm mainly thinking about real maps, like
> selecting a state from the map of the United States, or a country from
> the map of Europe. But there might be other cases as well. Anyway, the
> image map should be regarded as a secondary alternative, with a list of
> links being the real thing, not vice versa.[/color]

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website


"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:40963bbe$0 $558$b45e6eb0@s enator-bedfellow.mit.e du...[color=blue]
> In article <c6trna$fsooa$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> >That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
> >used. Simply put, avoid blinking.[/color]
>
> How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
> configured to blink or animate?[/color]

Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than anyone
else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a device
whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library or
at an Internet cafe? How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Building Accessible Website

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
> equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content?[/color]

Support to OBJECT is still poor, including images as objects and the use
of the element's content as fallback. Besides, in situations where client
side image maps would make sense, it would probably still be best to have
both the image map and the list of links as normal content. This would
let the user decide which interface he finds more comfortable. For
example, if the image contains a map of a country, with major cities as
active areas, many people who normally prefer graphic browsing and use
the mouse might wish to select a city from a list of links, since that's
easier than hitting a small circle with a mouse.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html