3 ms·

I don't know how I can answer this. I suppose I could make a comment about how we don't even have browsers for the sighted that can understand the code that som

by bphogan 16y ago

I don't know how I can answer this. I suppose I could make a comment about how we don't even have browsers for the sighted that can understand the code that some developers throw up on pages. Or I could say "Find 10 pages, and quickly determine, from only the HTML markup, what the main content is." and then do that for the top 1000 pages on the net. See how hard the problem is. If you solve it, you'd be a hero. On the other hand, you could use accessibility patterns like UJS, alternative text, skip links, ARIA roles, better semantic markup, and make your site about 80% more usable in about an hour :)

petercooper 16y ago
On the other hand, you could use accessibility patterns like UJS, alternative text, skip links, ARIA roles, better semantic markup, and make your site about 80% more usable in about an hour :) I agree, but sadly it remains easier to solve even hard technical challenges than seemingly easy social ones where, if you're lucky, perhaps 20% of developers will cooperate. As a developer I find accessibility interesting, which is why I submitted it, but unless I'm being forced to implement it by law or context (e.g. a site with a high demographic of people using screen readers) I haven't the inclination or motivation to focus on it (though skip links, alternative text, etc, are good ideas anyway). It's a bit like dealing with IE5 or WebTV in that regard. There are lots of ways in which we could make the world better for disabled people, I'm sure, but typically we've built technology to make life easier for them instead of changing the way the world already operates (with the notable exception of building codes enforcing the installation of ramps and disabled access systems). I'm not saying that's always a good thing but people are notoriously slow to change en masse (y'seen the average quality of HTML out there?). It shouldn't be too far fetched to significantly improve the usability of screen readers even on the hairiest of pages - most regular browsers do a stellar job at interpreting horrendous markup. Half of the stuff that your recording comes out with isn't even visible on the screen.. do screen readers pay full attention to CSS and states enforced and controlled by JavaScript? If not, that's probably step one to making things better. I suspect the problem is that there's little money, fame, and too few people looking at the technological aspects of this problem, whereas inventing a new "standard" and sitting on some W3 fancy board looks great on the old résumé.

by bphogan 16y ago

petercooper 16y ago

On the other hand, you could use accessibility patterns like UJS, alternative text, skip links, ARIA roles, better semantic markup, and make your site about 80% more usable in about an hour :) I agree, but sadly it remains easier to solve even hard technical challenges than seemingly easy social ones where, if you're lucky, perhaps 20% of developers will cooperate. As a developer I find accessibility interesting, which is why I submitted it, but unless I'm being forced to implement it by law or context (e.g. a site with a high demographic of people using screen readers) I haven't the inclination or motivation to focus on it (though skip links, alternative text, etc, are good ideas anyway). It's a bit like dealing with IE5 or WebTV in that regard. There are lots of ways in which we could make the world better for disabled people, I'm sure, but typically we've built technology to make life easier for them instead of changing the way the world already operates (with the notable exception of building codes enforcing the installation of ramps and disabled access systems). I'm not saying that's always a good thing but people are notoriously slow to change en masse (y'seen the average quality of HTML out there?). It shouldn't be too far fetched to significantly improve the usability of screen readers even on the hairiest of pages - most regular browsers do a stellar job at interpreting horrendous markup. Half of the stuff that your recording comes out with isn't even visible on the screen.. do screen readers pay full attention to CSS and states enforced and controlled by JavaScript? If not, that's probably step one to making things better. I suspect the problem is that there's little money, fame, and too few people looking at the technological aspects of this problem, whereas inventing a new "standard" and sitting on some W3 fancy board looks great on the old résumé.