1 Thoughts and Questions

Overall a good article, …

While it is certainly accessible to put tables in a web page, the carte blanche – go ahead and use them, seemed a tad irresponsible and lacking. This statement missed the point that if tables are used, they neeed to be written or marked up correctly in order to be delivered in an accessible way. Not ALL readers deliver or access table information in the same way. And not too many people are aware of the linear output of complicated tables, orthe techniques of associating data in the correct way.

Missing also are the good points of multimedia delivery and how Flash may make content more accessible to those that need more than text, which may be most of the population. This higher percentages also includes those with cognitive and or learning disabilities, and even those with no disability or access issues. Multimedia is a tool to deliver content with good functional design abilities and higher reaching results than text only. Yes, alternatives are needed for those that cannot access the information. But accessibility and multimedia includes these areas, too. They are often overlooked, because most of the focus is on visual first, hearing, then motor, and cognitive issues remain in last place or forgotten. [important issues for delivery of content via education]

Finally a rather pointed question…
Where is all the anger or pressing active questions that needs to be directed at Mac equipment?

Are Mac’s going to ever be made to work with accessibility in better ways? I understand many or most of the readers work with Windows systems, but with Mac OSX is it not possible to run these under Virtual Windows mode?

I think it is great, no matter what the reason, Macromedia is working on Accessibility issues. I had seen some of this come about back in 2000, following the Jim Heid article… “A Call to Action: Making Flash Accessible,â€?
http://www.heidsite.com/archives/Flashaccess.html

Now, we also need to look at GoLive, Premier, and many more… and I see that was mentioned and I will be looking forward to reading more about these other topics.

One last point. Often it is displayed that the software or computer, etc … is the culprit to meeting Accessibility issues or guidelines. Many times it can also be said the equipment that these users do use and the companies that make this equipment – also have to get on the ball and rework or improve their products to meet these guidelines that others have met. This is not an easy issue and the responsibility belongs to everyone. The equipment, the software companies, the browsers, and lastly also the people using the equipment to access such information. If others are working to conform, the equipment should also conform on the flip side. And this will all take time.

Thank you.

posted at 04:17 am on April 26, 2002 by

2 accessible applications

I have one question, how do you make PhotoShop accessible to someone that is blind?

Is this even necessary?

I can understand improvinge PS’s keyboard access, but I have a hard time justifying the cost making the program accessible to someone who can’t see at all. It is, afterall a program for creating and editing visual imagery.

Would lack of support for blind users disquallify PS as a tool for government agencies?

Seems kind of unreasable if it does.

posted at 07:26 am on April 26, 2002 by michael

3 Reply to Accessible Apps

The concern or area re accessibility in graphics tools mostly involves motor issues? Maybe some cognitive issues(??) – then again most GUI’s could use a bit of improvement to even average audiences.

On the flip side, there probably are people with visual difficulties using graphics tools.

[1] Color vision differences – In this area it may or might be important that any tool icon or device in an app, have enough contrast so that the item can be distinguished.

There may also be fully or partially color blind users, using Photoshop or any other graphics tool, putting out black and white imagery.

[2] Aging populations, and low vision users may need icons or graphics on icons to have the ability to enlarge enough to see these. However, maybe their OS offers this functionality on their own work spaces, though I am not sure if this translates to all software installed?

Regarding blind users and applications, I know several that write and design or code web sites, use FTP, teach using the internet and online delivery of material, and also program… so yes these tools do need appropriate functionality for blind users.

posted at 08:00 am on April 26, 2002 by hmm

4 Excellent Article Joe

This was an excellent article, Joe.

“While it is certainly accessible to put tables in a web page, the carte blanche – go ahead and use them, seemed a tad irresponsible and lacking. – anon.”

Don’t get too worked up over this. I don’t think he needs to get into all of the details of HTML table markup in an article about Flash accessibility.

Oh, and if Apple wants to continue selling their computers to schools then they had better get up to speed with accessibility. And fast.

Many states are implementing their own accessibility guidelines for web sites, or they are just mandating that their agencies have to follow 508. So many people do not understand what this means, and just shrug it off. It’s quite a shame, since this legislation will eventually be more closely associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act. And when that happens, everyone will get a serious wake-up call. Just ask the folks in Australia about Maguire v. SOCOG.

The web is still in its infancy. Accessibility requirments are going to make it grow up.

posted at 08:22 am on April 26, 2002 by Randal Rust

5 The pick on Praystation?

The author ends the article volunteering to make Praystation fully accessible. No one would put to doubt the importance of accessibility today, but that’s not the quid of the question.

The real matter is: Why? What for?

Making an all-visual site like Praystation accesible for screen readers doesn’t make more sense than creating an audible tour for blind people at a museum – unless 508 compliance extends as a mandatory term for web sites, and, with all respects, that is quite a stretch indeed. Having all sites be measured with the same stick falls quite off the mark. A general interest site like Yahoo and a designer’s portfolio site attract to very different audiences with very different interests. Accessibility is always a lofty goal, but its importance scale depends very much on the type of site, its usual audience, and many other factors in between.

Besides, I don’t think Joshua Davis would give a damn about it all.

posted at 10:42 am on April 26, 2002 by beto

6 Preying on Praystation?

I notice that Davis’ Praystation seems to use Flash objects for navigation as well as for the artworks themselves.

It really depends on whether Davis wants to open his artworks to the general public or not. I don’t think private art galleries are required by law to have audio tours or accomodations for people with disabilities.

But doesn’t the lack of such accommodation cause art to suffer? Doesn’t the artist create something for the world to experience and think about? If some are shut out from the experience, what’s the point?

posted at 02:36 pm on April 26, 2002 by Farlops Industries

7 Freedomof choice

I explained perfectly well why Praystation should be made accessible: To show that it can be done. I’m just not very big on deciding for the crips which kinds of information they will and will not have access to. Wordless music videos and live dance performances are made accessible. I don’t see how Flash is so very, very special. I could be missing something here, though. I probably am.

posted at 02:59 pm on April 26, 2002 by Joe Clark

8 Re: Freedom of Choice

I agree, Joe, that using Flash does not relieve the burden of accessibility. If you argued for that, you’d also have to argue that all visual art be excluded, and that’s simply not a fair argument.

I also understand, Joe, why you’d want to make Praystation accessible— it is definitely an artistic and visual implementation using Flash. If that can be made accessible, then you’ve removed the argument that Flash artworks can’t be made accessible.

However, Josh Davis has made it clear that PrayStation is his online sketch pad, and damn all the opinions people have about it. It’s certainly within his rights to make that site.

Certainly, I support accessibility, but I can’t think that the newbie learning Flash or the granny sharing a picture collection can (or should) be expected to be knowledgable on the needs of all people worldwide.

This, it can never be required that all web pages be accessible, as the web is intended to be an open forum for all kinds of documents.

To another point:
Even if Macromedia does all of this work to make their products accessible, let’s not forget that the desktop browser is not the web. Alternate representations of Flash sites should still be made available.

Flash may be a great tool for animation and artistic rendering, but the person using Lynx or surfing your site on their voice browser will likely not be impressed by alt text saying they need the Flash plugin.

And that is why I am more for W3C recommendations. With the work on ECMAScript, DOM, SVG and SMIL (for example), I think that an open implementation to rival Flash may be forthcoming, in good time (Call me a hopeless optimist) .

Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my non-Flash implementations, thanks. :)

posted at 04:00 pm on April 26, 2002 by Jeremy Dunck

9 Good Start

Now that a screenreader can access Flash content, I have one question: why can’t my browser’s Edit -> Find? That would also be a major vistory for usability and it’s a shame that hasn’t been implemented as-of-yet.

posted at 04:58 pm on April 26, 2002 by

10 Accessible Art

Praystation may be Josh’s personal experimental sketch pad, but surely that is the perfect place to start to experiment with accessible, art based media. A big enough challenge to excite…

On the other hand, what about approaching WDDG, Digit, Hillman Curtis, or another of the Design Agency Flash sites that perhaps more use for Flash Accessibility.

posted at 02:12 am on April 27, 2002 by experience

Discussion Closed

New comments are not being accepted, but you are welcome to explore what people said before we closed the door.

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Forgot your password?

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)