13 ms·

"Accessibility costs money" is a popular thing to say, but I'm not convinced that needs to be true. Okay, fine, captioning/transcribing videos I'll give you, bu

"Accessibility costs money" is a popular thing to say, but I'm not convinced that needs to be true. Okay, fine, captioning/transcribing videos I'll give you, but many of the other issues on this page can be addressed for a web page just by not breaking the defaults. By default, links are underlined. For text content, many major browsers (Firefox and mobile Safari for sure) include a "reader mode" or similar where the user can adjust their own contrast - as long as you don't break your HTML and prevent the reader mode from working. Web pages are black and while by default, so anything with lots of bright colors is something you have to do intentionally. Animations are also something you have to add intentionally. It really seems like just by not breaking the defaults (I.e., no work at all) your web page should do a decent (not perfect) job of being accessible. But we're so obsessed with making things shiny and swooshy that we've lost sight of that.

SilasX 9y ago
>"Accessibility costs money" is a popular thing to say, but I'm not convinced that needs to be true. Okay, fine, captioning/transcribing videos I'll give you, Even that one is overstated. Sure, taking some existing video, and treating it as the only representation of the content, and then trying to transcribe it -- that's expensive. But virtually every such video (esp. lectures) intended for conveying information is going to correspond to some text equivalent, and they can just post that in a place that's easy to find. Not only is it cheap, many users who can hear will prefer that version. I think it's just a widespread attitude problem (for lack of a more refined diagnosis). It's not just big institutions, but discussion forums where some users will stubbornly link a video as their only citation, and won't even take the time to summarize the key point they think it's substantiating.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Can you elaborate why do you assume that such videos are likely to have a text equivalent? You bring up lectures as example - I certainly don't have transcripts of lectures I've given, and neither do most professors/lecturers/whatever that I know; a few of them have most of their talk content in their slides but that's a horrible practice that distracts from effective lecture or presentation; in general all the non-audio material is intended to be a supplement to the talk and either are not meaningful without it (e.g. illustrations) or are not representative of the talk (e.g. a textbook chapter that's mostly about the same topic, but different). The recorded audio (if it'd be recorded) would literally be the only copy of the content of that lecture in existence. The same applies for many other genres of video content. Most videos aren't scripted, and thus no script exists; heck, even videos that are clearly well prepared, staged and filmed with multiple takes (e.g. many of "youtube creators") generally don't have a script beforehand, the textual content is improvised on the spot and doesn't exist in written form unless it gets transcribed. Interviews and podcasts are other good examples - as you say, many users who can hear would prefer to read it, I certainly would, but the obvious reality is that the textual version of those things does not exist unless it gets made, and making it takes much more time than recording the interview or podcast in the first place.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    I was specifically referring to videos intended for conveying information, not entertainment. If professionally done, it has a script. If a college lecture, it has a corresponding textbook exposition. And you've seriously never written up any equivalent to any lecture content? It's all extemporaneous, all the time, and you can't spare the one time to write it down?
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      We don't have a tradition of teaching from a particular textbook (some universities do, some don't) so generally a lecture would include pointers towards chapters in multiple different textbooks, none of which match the contents of the lecture exactly (i.e. they're supplementary material, extra reading); and even if some lecture was based on a particular textbook, that text (unlike the lecture video/transcript) would be something that couldn't ever be published with a video because of copyright issues. For my own teaching, no, I don't write up a "script" beforehand, I prepare content and plan for the topics and key points that I intend to cover in this lecture (and the next one, if we go quicker than expected), but the actual content heavily depends on how the students react, what they are (mis)understanding, what are the questions, etc. I don't consider well-scripted lectures a good thing, the lecturers that I know who are more into "reading off a script" give quite weak lectures IMHO. Preparing in-depth textual material would seem a waste of effort as students would get the same content in the lecture. I wouldn't use it for other students since I'd anyway never give the same lecture twice - research is progressing fast, so my 2016 content is dated now and this year's content will definitely have to be rewritten (and the course restructured) next year. Admittedly, that's context-dependant - my situation is uncommon, there's a lot of teaching that involves lecturing the same introductory topic for many years off of a classic textbook to multiple larger audiences, and in that context your arguments would definitely apply. But that's actually all offtopic. The main issue is that none of this is equivalent to the transcript. Nothing of what you propose would make the video accessible to a deaf person. A textbook chapter or the lecture materials are alternatives to the video, it helps making do without the video, but doesn't make accessible the part of video where the lecturer is writing something interesting on the blackboard and explaining something that you can't hear.
seriouspat 9y ago
By not breaking the defaults you make something ugly. By making something ugly people won't come again. Hence accessibility does cost money. Add the occasional ungrateful guy who will sue you because you forgot a caption and I get why people don't try to accomodate more to a niche that won't be lucrative anyway.
- jim-jim-jim 9y ago
  Black text on a white background with the occasional underline is ugly? God help you if you ever have to read a book.
jameshart 9y ago
Making an accessible webpage to present some content is easy. Making an accessible web application is a completely different problem.
- vizeroth 9y ago
  While on the surface this is true, the amount of work required as a developer to learn how to do this is insignificant compared to the total time required to really understand your craft. While you may have to spend more time testing accessibility if you want to use the latest features in the bleeding-edge versions of JavaScript and CSS (or whatever language you're using which compiles down to them) or WebAssembly, you'll probably spend more time on browser compatibility testing, too, with those technologies (or you'll take the IDGAF approach). When you really dig into it, though, most of the accessibility issues for the UI of a web application are still among the things you have to know to present accessible content on a website. In either case, the important point is to know when you're pushing the boundaries so you can make an informed decision about your testing requirements. It's just another metric to consider, like browser compatibility or mobile presentation.
tinus_hn 9y ago
By making things accessible to disabled people you also make them accessible to computers. This can be a great asset, for instance in automated testing (much easier with accessible ui) or indexing (with captioned video).

SilasX 9y ago

>"Accessibility costs money" is a popular thing to say, but I'm not convinced that needs to be true. Okay, fine, captioning/transcribing videos I'll give you, Even that one is overstated. Sure, taking some existing video, and treating it as the only representation of the content, and then trying to transcribe it -- that's expensive. But virtually every such video (esp. lectures) intended for conveying information is going to correspond to some text equivalent, and they can just post that in a place that's easy to find. Not only is it cheap, many users who can hear will prefer that version. I think it's just a widespread attitude problem (for lack of a more refined diagnosis). It's not just big institutions, but discussion forums where some users will stubbornly link a video as their only citation, and won't even take the time to summarize the key point they think it's substantiating.

PeterisP 9y ago
Can you elaborate why do you assume that such videos are likely to have a text equivalent? You bring up lectures as example - I certainly don't have transcripts of lectures I've given, and neither do most professors/lecturers/whatever that I know; a few of them have most of their talk content in their slides but that's a horrible practice that distracts from effective lecture or presentation; in general all the non-audio material is intended to be a supplement to the talk and either are not meaningful without it (e.g. illustrations) or are not representative of the talk (e.g. a textbook chapter that's mostly about the same topic, but different). The recorded audio (if it'd be recorded) would literally be the only copy of the content of that lecture in existence. The same applies for many other genres of video content. Most videos aren't scripted, and thus no script exists; heck, even videos that are clearly well prepared, staged and filmed with multiple takes (e.g. many of "youtube creators") generally don't have a script beforehand, the textual content is improvised on the spot and doesn't exist in written form unless it gets transcribed. Interviews and podcasts are other good examples - as you say, many users who can hear would prefer to read it, I certainly would, but the obvious reality is that the textual version of those things does not exist unless it gets made, and making it takes much more time than recording the interview or podcast in the first place.
- SilasX 9y ago
  I was specifically referring to videos intended for conveying information, not entertainment. If professionally done, it has a script. If a college lecture, it has a corresponding textbook exposition. And you've seriously never written up any equivalent to any lecture content? It's all extemporaneous, all the time, and you can't spare the one time to write it down?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    We don't have a tradition of teaching from a particular textbook (some universities do, some don't) so generally a lecture would include pointers towards chapters in multiple different textbooks, none of which match the contents of the lecture exactly (i.e. they're supplementary material, extra reading); and even if some lecture was based on a particular textbook, that text (unlike the lecture video/transcript) would be something that couldn't ever be published with a video because of copyright issues. For my own teaching, no, I don't write up a "script" beforehand, I prepare content and plan for the topics and key points that I intend to cover in this lecture (and the next one, if we go quicker than expected), but the actual content heavily depends on how the students react, what they are (mis)understanding, what are the questions, etc. I don't consider well-scripted lectures a good thing, the lecturers that I know who are more into "reading off a script" give quite weak lectures IMHO. Preparing in-depth textual material would seem a waste of effort as students would get the same content in the lecture. I wouldn't use it for other students since I'd anyway never give the same lecture twice - research is progressing fast, so my 2016 content is dated now and this year's content will definitely have to be rewritten (and the course restructured) next year. Admittedly, that's context-dependant - my situation is uncommon, there's a lot of teaching that involves lecturing the same introductory topic for many years off of a classic textbook to multiple larger audiences, and in that context your arguments would definitely apply. But that's actually all offtopic. The main issue is that none of this is equivalent to the transcript. Nothing of what you propose would make the video accessible to a deaf person. A textbook chapter or the lecture materials are alternatives to the video, it helps making do without the video, but doesn't make accessible the part of video where the lecturer is writing something interesting on the blackboard and explaining something that you can't hear.

seriouspat 9y ago

By not breaking the defaults you make something ugly. By making something ugly people won't come again. Hence accessibility does cost money. Add the occasional ungrateful guy who will sue you because you forgot a caption and I get why people don't try to accomodate more to a niche that won't be lucrative anyway.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago
Black text on a white background with the occasional underline is ugly? God help you if you ever have to read a book.

jameshart 9y ago

Making an accessible webpage to present some content is easy. Making an accessible web application is a completely different problem.

vizeroth 9y ago
While on the surface this is true, the amount of work required as a developer to learn how to do this is insignificant compared to the total time required to really understand your craft. While you may have to spend more time testing accessibility if you want to use the latest features in the bleeding-edge versions of JavaScript and CSS (or whatever language you're using which compiles down to them) or WebAssembly, you'll probably spend more time on browser compatibility testing, too, with those technologies (or you'll take the IDGAF approach). When you really dig into it, though, most of the accessibility issues for the UI of a web application are still among the things you have to know to present accessible content on a website. In either case, the important point is to know when you're pushing the boundaries so you can make an informed decision about your testing requirements. It's just another metric to consider, like browser compatibility or mobile presentation.

tinus_hn 9y ago

By making things accessible to disabled people you also make them accessible to computers. This can be a great asset, for instance in automated testing (much easier with accessible ui) or indexing (with captioned video).