|WikiProject Disability||(Rated C-class)|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
This article has been moved from the blindness page, since it has little to do with the condition of sight-loss. Web accessibility needs a lot of help though, so please feel free to add constructively. Kael 00:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)== Benefits of Web accessibility ==
In this section, it provide a lot of examples on what people with disabilities can benefit with web accessibility, but no examples on what benefits to a company or author of a website. What are the benefits for a company which took on web accessibility? Are there specific examples on how web accessibility also proved beneficial to those without disabilities? (because the first sentence claims "Designing websites with accessibility in mind can often enhance usability for all users.") --Editrek 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Benefits for companies/authors: If authored with accessibility in mind, the web page will display and be usable on more devices. IMHO this is getting more important as devices are constantly getting more diverse: Think e.g. about the different screen sizes of mobile devices, or consider that some people will want to browse via their TV's remote control - a couple of shortcuts mapping e.g. the key "1" to "homepage" will help a lot (it will also help cellphone users). --Stachelfisch 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1 Estimate of date of publication of WCAG2 - "baseless speculation"?
- 2 Removed disability item
- 3 Alternative browsers
- 4 External links cleanup
- 5 UK Pas 78
- 6 External links to tools
- 7 Aging is not a disability
- 8 Definition, Guidelines Cleanup
- 10 Reads like a debate
- 11 web accessibility vs. DfA (in ICT) articles
- 12 Web 2.0 challenge section is very problematic
- 13 First paragraph
- 14 External link: Fix the Web
Estimate of date of publication of WCAG2 - "baseless speculation"?
I'm very glad to hear that. I have previously looked for such info and been unable to find any. Is her comment online somewhere? If so, please do add the info back in with a reference to it. --Vidook 07:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed disability item
I removed the following item from list of disability types:
- "* non-native speakers of the website's language(s) (including users of sign languages)." --ChrisWinter 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- this point could really be in there because it states in the WCAG 1.0: They may not speak or understand fluently the language in which the document is written. I think it would be better to change the term "disabilities" to the terms used in WCAG people that operate in different context than the majority
Point for Discussion: As well as accessibility features for the mainstream browsers, should we add a further section listing common, dedicated disabled friendly browsers; I'm thinking specifically of pwWebSpeak (which I personally use) or others listed on the
I took a stab at cleaning up some of the external links that appeared extraneous and/or in violation of WP:EL & WP:SPAM. Looks like a great deal more could be done given how many related articles are are available in Wikipedia, each with it's own list. --Ronz 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- the links going to the site http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/ are looking like spam to me, too. Shouldn't they be removed?
- Moebiuz 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I recently added WebAIM.org to the list of resources for developers, and was told that this was not appropriate, which left me a bit confused. They are a non-profit, university-based organization with tutorials, a respected accessibility discussion forum, and articles on the subject. I am not affiliated with them (though I was in the past), and have no agenda, except to make the resource available to people through wikipedia. If the concern is that they offer web accessibility services, I suppose I might understand the root of the objection, but I would disagree that they are an inappropriate resource here. They are as appropriate as any advocacy organization is, of which there are already several listed in the links. --Tw33dl3bug 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm for trimming this list down much further. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not a how-to. --Ronz 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I trimmed it down, though I'm not particularly happy with the results. I'd prefer just a few links that provide lots of quality information including their own lists of links to related sites. --Ronz 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The list of resources for developers, as it is now, makes it appear as though the only type of disability is blindness. The organizations listed are good ones, but they are advocacy organizations for only one type of disability. I had no objection to Knowbility or accessify or webaim or any of the others like that, because they are the sites that developers really go to. The blindness-specific advocacy sites are not really for developers. They're for people who are blind, or for people who are interested in blindess-related political issues. I think the items that belong there would be the W3C site, webaim, accessify, and other similar sites that include a broad spectrum of information about all kinds of disabilities. See, for example, http://webaim.org/articles/ Tw33dl3bug 04:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
UK Pas 78
Since there's already a sentence on Pas_78 with a link to the article, I didn't see need for the addition of specifics from these guidelines in this article. Perhaps they could fit in the Pas_78 article? --Ronz 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. I'll rehash this to include it in the article. Regards. Abilitynet 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Lynx view tools that used to point to pizzaseo.com is to a tool that seems currently partially broken (although the link is not broken, the tool produces garbage output when used to test some sites). For this reason I replaced the link with one pointing to the Lynx view tool at yellowpipe which appears to be reliable. If there any problems are discovered with these tools, please comment on them here.
OK, I will check it, as I jave just used the tool for few sites and it worked correctly. What was the error you were getting? --dusoft 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have revisited this, and retested the pizzaseo.com too which was badly broken on the first two sites I tested, producing garbled output. (Test on http://www.bbc.co.uk - results are unreadable in terms of layout with huge amounts of whitespace, and http://www.tosg.org.uk - does not understand UTF8, and output is much inferior (less 'rich') compared to that produced by the yellowpipe tool.) I have therefore demoted the reference to the broken pizzaseo.com tool.CecilWard 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Aging is not a disability
Aging in itself is not a disability, though it certainly correlates with many deficiencies and disabilities. The article already lists specific needs to address. "Aging" is not a specific and listing it implies that there are other needs not already listed. --Ronz 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - I am a professional in the field, and the five classes of disabilities that we have listed in the article at present are the only ones I have ever seen mentioned in any credible resource on web accessibility. Clearly the effects of aging that necessitate assistive technologies all fall within one of those five groups, precluding the need for aging as a separate category. Acdixon 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - aging is not a disability. However it needs to be mentioned somewhere when you design a website, the aging factor needs to be considered. By not mentioning it explicitly within the web accessibility context, we might not create an awareness among web designers that they need to consider it. Editrek 10:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- But what needs to be considered about aging? That older people can't see well? That's addressed by mentioning visual disabilities. That older people can't hear well? That's addressed by mentioning auditory disabilities. That older people may not have finely-tuned motor skills? That's addressed by mentioning motor disabilities. That older people don't have the mental acuity that they once did? That's addressed by mentioning cognitive disabilities. If a designer addresses those four, what more should he or she be aware of in terms of aging? What else can he or she do that would make his or her site more accessible to older people? I still fail to see where you are coming from. What specifically about aging would you like considered that doesn't fall into one of the categories above? Acdixon 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Point taken. --Editrek 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I think mentioning aging has value. A lot of people assume that there are not many people with disabilities looking at their content, however most people realize that there is a large aging population, and that the need to accommodate them. Therefore it helps promote the topic. This is even more true with cognitive disabilities. Many people have no wish to accommodate people with cognitive disabilities, as they assume (wrongly) their content is not relevant to them. However, people may haver an older relative of friend whose short term memory has moderately declined. Clearly they are still interested in all the same topics that interested them before. However, you need accommodate them, use less new jargon etc, for them to follow.Lseeman (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Definition, Guidelines Cleanup
I'm a newly registered user, so I thought I'd better ask before making any of the following, possibly quite intrusive, changes. Are there any comments/objections to the following? --Stachelfisch 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
A cited definition of web accessibility is missing. The word "usable" in the first sentence is a bit problematic, as it could blur the distinction between accessibility and usability. I propose the definition coined by WAI:
Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web. More specifically, Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can contribute to the Web.
This could be followed by some more introductory explanations - IMHO, the WCAG 2 principles (perceivable, operable, understandable, robust), each illustrated with a small example, would serve nicely to introduce the concept.
The guidelines section needs some work IMHO. First, the distinction between "2.2 Other guidelines" and "3 Legally required web accessibility" is not possible - for example, US section 508 includes its own rules which are mostly (but only mostly) based on WCAG 1. Instead, I would like to create "2 Guideline Documents" (WCAG etc) and "3 Country-specific Accessibility Regulations".
An important (IMHO) set of guidelines is not mentioned at all: The Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Similarly, Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox is missing as a relatively important source IMHO. It was quite influential in the late nineties. Note that both of these go beyond accessibility and also include usability, but that shouldn't prevent inclusion here, right?! --Stachelfisch 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The consortium has driven P3P which, when I've seen reflected in practice¹, allows third-party Web sites to put cookies on my computer freely. Now they are promoting a view on accessibility as something unique, exclusive to the disabled. My concern is: In the pie of usability, is not accessibility a piece that nobody will want to eat once separated from the rest?
- 1.- As implemented in IE7, and I am sure Microsoft followed every W3C dictate. El imp (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Reads like a debate
Section 2 of this article looks like a debate. Is there a tag for that? (If not, maybe somebody could create one - I have no idea how)
web accessibility vs. DfA (in ICT) articles
Web accessibility and Design for All (in ICT) deal with the same overarching topic and should be merged. I will do this merge myself in a few days unless there are immediate objections. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- So you insist despite my immediate objection at WikiProjet disability. OK then, I'll use another approach. I will remove this merging proposal in a few days, unless you can demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia:Merging requirements. What do you have to say about the following quote?
"Merging should not be considered if
- The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles"
- Dodoïste (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page here for my response to your response.
Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Web 2.0 challenge section is very problematic
This section is very problematic to me. Maybe it is a pitch from the people behind Drempelvrij Foundation or that project for a quality mark? The Web 2.0 challenge has been addressed by ARIA (although there will always be some issues at the cutting edge) Aria is now well supported and has been adopted. The promotion of Drempelvrij Foundation and its members seem very inappropriate and their reference here does not seems relevant to the gist of the section. Should I redo this section? Lseeman (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead. This section is outdated. And I never heard of Drempelvrij Foundation, it seems to be non notable since its article was deleted. Dodoïste (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I updated it. Also I listed the editors - Rich Schwerdtfeger, James Craig, Michael Cooper, Lisa Pappas and myself . Is that allowed or should i just not mention the editors / authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseeman (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mentioning the authors is relevant at the dedicated article WAI-ARIA, but not on a summary such as this one.
- Since you're an accessibility expert you might want to contact the WikiMedia Foundation. At Wikipedia, we only have some small volunteer-driven projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility trying to improve accessibility. But those projects seriously lack expertise. The WikiMedia Foundation is not involved in accessibility yet. But they recently had an Usability Initiative, and hired usability experts (who did a poor job accessibility-wise). At the moment, the WikiMedia Foundation is hiring and has much more money than before: they have matured enough. It's the best timing to jump in and promote accessibility.
- So if you know of any accessibility expert who is looking for a job, or anyone interested by such a job, please tell them to contact the WikiMedia Foundation.
- The WikiMedia Foundation was contacted by accessibility experts in 2005 - at the moment Wikipedia was already an extremely large Website - but they had a total of 3 employees at the time. They just weren't ready. But now the situation has changed, the WikiMedia Foundation has over 50 employees as of now and it's growing fairly fast. Dodoïste (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks. :-) See the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Danese Cooper is the Chief Technical Officer you want to contact. But I'm not sure she really is enclined towards accessibility. When I met her after I gave a conference about accessibility at Wikimania 2010 she said they might consider hiring an accessibilitw expert in 2011. Trevor Parscal is the lead Front-end Developer (the guy we need to work with) and responsible of UX Programs; he semed to be concerned about Web quality and accessibility. But they might not be the only one taking the decisions, so you may need to contact higher-ups. Erik Möller is the Deputy Director, and attended my conference about accessibility at Wikimania 2010; he seemed interested and concerned.
- Note that they still have little money for a top 7 Website, so you might want to add that caring about accessibility will reinforce the position of the WikiMedia Foundation as a nonprofit charitable organization. Plus, I'm most certain there are any number of organization out there willing to donate the necessary money to make Wikipedia accessible. ;-)
- Finally, see WikiMedia Foundation: Contact us. Again, thanks for getting involved. Dodoïste (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
With due respect to previous editors, the first paragraph seems longer and more detailed than I have seen in other articles. Please see WP:MOSINTRO. I am proposing to move the examples ("For example, when ...") to a new section within the body of the article, and to present them as a list for clarity. Comments welcome. Wdchk (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Wikipedia have a link to this web page.