Got a site with powerpoint presentations that the client wants embedded, the embedding is being done via google docs embed. I have been doing some accessibility testing, albeit not particularly in-depth but even with OS X screen reader it is not having any luck reading the slides. (I am aware slides are probably terrible for accessibility anyway). I can get the text content of the slides stripped out via the Google API, but I don't know if thats the best thing, to include it on the page below/above the iframe embed with one of the CSS tricks for hiding it from normal view?
I am aware of iframe title and aria-label but those seem to imply they are only to describe the contents of the iframe, which I am doing, but I need somewhere that can contain more text.
Has anyone got any good tips for the best way to deal with such things? Thanks!!
Embedding rich 3rd-party content in web pages poses many challenges.
When we put something like this in a web page, we typically think we're adding a bit of "content", but it often amounts to embedding a complex application; and the user interface, semantics, and presentation are outside of our control. In your case it's a presentation slide deck, but it could also be a Flash/Silverlight/Java applet, a slippy map, interactive SVG infographic, a 3D-panorama, virtual tour, zoomable image, chemical molecule viewer, or who-knows-what. (Note: I'm not familiar with the Google docs embed/API specifically, so most parts of my answer will address these rich content cases in general.)
Even if the embedded rich 3rd-party content/application is accessible today, there's no guarantee it will remain so after the 3rd-party system gets an update.
So what can you do? The safest thing might be to assume it's inaccessible, and consider the best way to provide an accessible alternative. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) calls this a "conforming alternate version", and it sounds like you're already thinking along these lines.
An important caveat to all of this, is that the use of "conforming alternate versions" isn't considered ideal by many accessibility specialists. It's greatly preferred to make your main content accessible as you can.
Some relevant parts of WCAG:
Understanding conformance, especially the section about "Understanding Conforming Alternate Versions".
Technique G190: Providing a link adjacent to or associated with a non-conforming object that links to a conforming alternate version.
F19: Failure of Conformance Requirement 1 due to not providing a method for the user to find the alternative conforming version of a non-conforming Web page.
It's worth mentioning the 3rd-party content in your website's accessibility statement. Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content offers guidance about that.
The crucial thing about conforming alternate versions, is that it's no use at all if the user isn't made aware of it, or isn't able to reach it.
Implementation-wise, there are a variety of approaches you might take. In many ways, providing an alternative for embedded rich content is similar to providing a long description of a complex image, or a transcript of a video. Have a look at these WAI tutorials for some ideas.
Web Accessibility Tutorials: Complex Images
Making Audio and Video Media Accessible: Where to Put Transcripts
I can get the text content of the slides stripped out via the Google API
It sounds like you're trying to automate the process. That's fine, but it might not give satisfactory results. Some things you should consider:
Is the text content alone going to be enough? Presentations often have images too. Did the author provide text alternatives for these images, and are they present in the text extracted via the API? If the author hasn't provided text alternatives for images in the slide deck, the text you get from the API won't be telling the whole story.
Not all text in slides carries the same weight. Some slides serve to introduce sections, some slides have headings. Does the text obtained from the API convey these relationships?
Lists are very commonly found in presentation. Does the text obtained from the API preserve this structure?
Slides sometimes contain links. Are these included in the text obtained from the API, so the links are available to everybody using the alternative version?
Slides sometimes contain tables and charts. How will the information in these be conveyed in your alterative version? Is the information included in the text obtained from the API?
Sometimes, presentation decks also contain rich 3rd-party embedded content themselves! A slide containing a video, or an animated GIF are examples of this. If so, you can find yourself with a much more complex challenge.
... and many other meaningful info and relationships. Quotations, code samples, etc.
If any of the above points give cause for concern, you will need to consider managing your alternative version manually.
The "conforming alternative version" has to conform to WCAG; if you just offer a choice of two non-conforming version, that doesn't satisfy WCAG.
include it on the page below/above the iframe embed with one of the CSS tricks for hiding it from normal view?
No, I wouldn't recommend that. I assume you're refering to visually-hidden text, using CSS utility classes such as .visually-hidden or .sr-only. It sounds like you're only thinking about screen reader users.
You need to offer the alternative version available to everybody, not just one group of users who you think will need it.
Many groups of users may experience difficulty using the rich 3rd-party embedded content. This includes people using the keyboard only, screen readers, magnifiers, speech control, switch access, or other tools. The conforming alternative version can be navigated like a normal web page though.
The 3rd-party content likely has a different visual style, and it may not be adaptable in the same way as the page it is embedded in. That can frustrate people who make use of browser zooming, text resizing, font preferences, reader mode, Windows high-contrast themes, viewport resizing, and other user-applied presentation changes. The conforming alternate version should be as adaptable as the rest of your site.
Rather than hiding the alternative version in a visually-hidden container, here are some other ways to present it. The first two are the simplest and most reliable.
Put it on the same page, just after the original content, visible to everybody.
Put it in a collapsible disclosure element just after the embedded content. A <details> element is an easy way to achieve this. This is useful if the alternative version is quite long.
Put it elsewhere on the same page, and tell users where to find it. An internal link can help here.
Put it on a separate page, with a link next to the embedded content. I'm less keen on this approach. Only use it if you can commit to maintaining both pages.
Provide a way for users to switch between the two versions. For example some buttons, or a tabbed UI. However, you must also ensure that the switching mechanism is accessible. That might mean a full-blown ARIA tabs implementation.
I am aware of iframe title and aria-label but those seem to imply they are only to describe the contents of the iframe
Giving the iFrame a useful name is important. It's also a useful mechanism to inform screen reader users that an alternative version is available. The WAI Complex Images tutorial linked above has some similar approaches. Example: <iframe title="Google Slides Presentation of FOO BAR BAZ. Link to text version follows this frame.">. This only helps screen reader users though; you still need to make the availability of the alternative version clear to everyone.
How committed are you to using Google Docs for displaying these slides?
Any accessibility enhancements that you'll be able to implement on Google Slides won't be very good.
One way around this whole thing is to offer PDF versions of the slides that have been fully-remediated for accessibility instead of using Google Slides. That would potentially be a single solution that could be accessible to all visitors. Going this route means that you wouldn't have multiple copies of the same slides to update, which could lead to a split in content if one gets updated and the other is forgotten.
If you're really set on having the slides embedded in the page, then you could offer both formats by applying aria-hidden to the embedded iframe and then hiding the PDF links from sighted users using CSS clip, or by positioning content off-screen.
Related
I'm tasked with evaluating some legacy web pages (classic asp) for accessibility. You can assume the HTML is not perfectly formed and that it's loaded with inline javascript and that we make use of javascript libraries that vomit HTML to create dynamic features. It's a circus in there.
While I recognize that the obvious answer is to re-write the page(s), that's not an option in our given time tables. So I'm trying to find the best way to make the pages work with a screen reader. Here's what I think I know.
We can use JAWS scripting to instruct the browser how to read the page.
We can use ARIA attributes to give the pages better organization and structure.
Specifically, I'm trying to figure out:
Question 1) If a JAWS script is present, will it be used exclusively by the browser/screen reader and ignore any improvements I make in the underling HTML structure?
Question 2) Could some well-place ARIA attributes give the page enough structure so that the default screen reader properties will work in an acceptable manner (without a JAWS script).
Question 3) I suspect the tough answer is that I would need to do both, which I'm trying to avoid because we barely have the capacity to do just one. But we don't want to lose a customer, of course. :-(
Many thanks for any input.
Instead of explaining only to JAWS how to access your pages, use JavaScript to explain it to any Assistive Technology (AT) for the web. I expect the same effort, while it will profit way more users.
In a JAWS script you would need to describe ways to access DOM nodes that are not accessible. That would include
speaking out information that you have to find elsewhere on the page
adding keyboard navigation where it's missing
Both can be done in JavaScript, probably even easier (you'll need to address DOM elements).
What you will need to avoid is restructuring the DOM and changes to classes, since those are most likely used by the scripts that generate them.
But I'd expect that adding attributes and keyboard handlers will do no harm to the existing scripts. Beware of already existing handlers for focus or keyboard events, though.
I would recommend making a list of attributes and handlers you suspect to conflict with the existing scripts, and searching the scripts for these, like onkeypress or onfocus event handlers.
The absolute best way to make your application/site accessible is to use semantic HTML. It doesn't matter if that HTML is generated by asp or jsp or whatever.
If you have a table, use a <table>.
If you have a heading, use an <h2>.
If you have a list, use a <ul>.
Use <section>, <article>, <nav>, <aside>, <header>, <footer>, etc
That's how you create structure on your page that a screen reader user will appreciate.
If you can't use native HTML, then fall back to ARIA, but treat it like salt. A little bit greatly enhances the flavor but too much spoils the meal.
If you can't use a native <h2>, then make sure you use the appropriate role and attributes.
<div role="heading" aria-level="2">this is my custom h2</div>
If you can't use a native <header>, then make sure you use the appropriate role and attributes.
<div role="banner">my header stuff goes in here</div>
I would recommend totally forgetting about JAWS scripts. It doesn't matter if that's what the customer thinks they should focus us. It's not about that customer. It's about that customer's customers. The end users. They should be able to use whatever screen reader they are used to using and most comfortable with. That's the whole purpose of accessibility - making the site usable and accessible by as many people as possible using whatever assistive technology they are used to using.
Following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) will lead you to that result.
I want to provide some very simple content to the user that describes how to use a web form.
This text could just as easily be written in HTML, however, convention among the content writers is to write all help text in Word, convert it to PDF, and then put a link to the PDF at the top of the web application.
Assuming that the PDFs are tagged and/or 508 compliant, does this practice present any accessibility concerns?
There are two issues posed with your question:
(1) PDF when it could be HTML
This requires the user to have software that reads PDF format.
This requires the PDF to be tagged and made accessible.
This interferes with usability and is problematic for some users, especially on mobile where the focus switch to a different (PDF reader) application looses focus on your web page or web browser.
(2) "breaking" accessibility
The accessibility of your web content is evaluated on its own merits: you certainly can have an accessible PDF but if your reasoning is your HTML does not need to be accessible because of that, you are not accessible and fail your end-users.
There is also a hidden use-case for accessibility or usability you might not consider: web crawlers and indexing. Users rely on web searching to find content and your PDF is not indexed to map to your web page content in most search engines, so users will not find the help they need.
Most reasonable people involved with Section 508 would likely agree it is not accessible, as it fails 1194.22(n): When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
§1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications
It is possible to convert Word content to HTML, and you are always highly encouraged to write the content as web content, because there are sometimes issues we simply accessing, and opening PDFs depending on the device they are using.
But to answer your question: no, as long as your PDF is accessible. I'd suggest putting it through something like the accessibility audit tool if you have Adobe Acrobat. If you don't, you might give content creators a simple check list, such as:
does your image have alt text if needed? (consider a decision tree/flowchart, example)
are your headings marked properly using the built-in styles?
are your tables formatted correctly? also tables are not used for layout
You'll probably notice these are typical guidelines when writing web content, but also apply to documents (Word, pdf, etc.).
WCAG has a list of PDF Techniques that you also want to check, but generally if you make sure that everything is tagged/styled/marked properly in Word, it should save to PDF with the correct tags and such.
Suppose you're developing a web site and blind users will be a significant chunk of your target market. If the web site includes document editing functionality, what would be appropriate WYSIWYM tools? Are languages like Markdown, Textile and Wiki Formatting really accessible or are they inconvenient to blind users?
I'm a blind programmer and while I haven't used most of the languages you mention I've found that any markdown language is fairly easy to use if you have the desire to learn it. I've had no problem using either HTML or several markup languages for wiki's. Part of it will depend on how invested the users are in your site. If it's a site that will be visited infrequently or for short periods of time, it's much less likely that a user will take the time to learn the required markup whether they are blind or not. Unfortunately, I have not found an accessible JavaScript WYSIWYG editor but I find it easier to manually enter the markup so haven't looked very hard.
the first question is: how important is semantic structure? could you get away with plain text. You could do simple parsing like treating blank lines as paragraph markers, treating a series of lines which begin with * as a bulleted list, identify URLs and make them into links, etc.
As a blind developer myself, I have no problem in understanding languages like Markdown. But if it's a syntax I'm unfamiliar with, I'll only learn it if I expect to use the site very often, or care deeply about the content.
Two final thoughts come to mind: while I certainly experience some accessibility challenges using TinyMCE, you could develop something much simpler - provide less than 10 formatting options, like inserting hyperlinks, making lists, centering text, setting the style (such as heading) etc.
And lastly, when I talk to non-technical blind people, they often just write their content in Word and paste into a wiki or blog post. This sounded strange when I first heard it, but it does make sense. So an ideal solution would accept pasted in content.
In closing - it depends how important this is, and how much effort you want to expend. Maybe a Markdown editor with a live preview (like on this site), buttons for inserting simple formatting like URLs, and the ability to paste in rich text would tick all boxes :-)
On a web page, the most accessible embedded text editor for blind users is one that uses standard HTML, such as a <textarea> element, with a corresponding <label> element:
<label for="editor">Enter your text here using wiki markup:</label>
<textarea id="editor"></textarea>
If a WYSIWYM tool is built using standard accessible HTML, then blind users can easily enter text into it, with full confidence that they're entering text in the right place. Then the question becomes: Which is the better markup language? They all require memorization, but some may be more intuitive than others. One way to find out which is best would be to do some usability testing with a wide variety of target users. Also be sure to providing easy, accessible access to syntax help.
Picture yourself working in pure text 80x4 display (just open a console and resize appropriately), then use vi/emacs/ed and you'll soon realize what markup will get in the way.
Try to do as much work as possible to understand plain text, else use light markup like POD, finally things like AsciiDoc are very powerful but needs training.
I don't know about WYSIWYG/WYSIWYM tools, but I do know that complying with W3C standards (especially their HTML5 en CSS3 drafts) while writing your own editor code will help a lot.
In CSS you can specify speed and intonation of speech. In HTML you can specify alternative text (alt attribute in many elements) that screen readers are compatible with. Be sure to know when to use the abbr and the acronym elements. Use the former when you want the screen reader to read the meaning of an abbreviation and the latter when the acronym should be read as a word (e.g. ASAP, NATO and OS).
For the editor itself, I recommend creating a WYSIWYG editor that uses divs and spans. Screen readers will understand easily the structure of a document. For the current line, use a text box; for every other line that's not being edited, convert the contents immediately to valid HTML.
If you find a good tool, be sure to post it here. I'm looking for one too. :-)
I'm looking for best-practices for designing a site that with accessibility in mind. The site is going to have a lot of older and less-abled individuals visiting it, and I want to make it as friendly for them as possible. Is there a resource that describes all the right tags, and attributes to use?
There are many many resources depending on your goals.
Strongly suggest you start with:
Section 508 (US legislation, obviously US centric though)
W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
edit:
Forgot to mention that WCAG has come in for some considerable criticism which makes this guy's efforts very helpful.
Also wanted to add, from personal experience, to remember that WA doesn't mean "blind people with screen readers". There are all manner of access limitations which you have to think of as well: e.g. dexterity issues related to e.g. muscle control, unusual input devices, and simple screen magnification.
Good luck!
Here's a quick list I tend to follow
Ensure it uses clean XHTML markup ideally to AAA standards,
Try where possible to spilt HTML, CSS, Javascript into respective files,
Create different style sheets for print, screen, etc.,
Ensure you take into consideration colours and fonts for the hard of sight and colour blindness,
Try to only place the main navigation at the top of the code so that the actual content appears near the top of the code, this way people do not have to scroll to far to see the content especially if they are using a screen reader / low res,
If you do have a lot of navigation before the content then place a link near the top allowing users to skip to the content,
Ensure the very first link on the page is to a text-only / low graphics version of the site,
Ensure ALL pages and all Essential functionality will work without JavaScript turned on,
There are lots of plugins for firefox to assist with development including:
Web Developer
No Script
HTML Validator
Firebug
Ensure the page renders across all browsers including old ones even if that means it works though does not match design exactly.
Ensure HTML, CSS, JavaScript is kept to the minimum file size to aid downloading times e.g. Remove white space and blank lines,
Always use LABELS in forms and alt, title tags in links and images,
Only use Tables for tabular data and ensure data appropriately labelled,
Where possible do not use JavaScript to write content to a page but use CSS to hide it, that way is JavaScript is disabled or does not work properly then content will still appear,
Always ensure you use onkeypress as well as onclick events in JavaScript encase the user can not / is not using a mouse.
Finally if you have to use blank images on a page for tracking etc. then don't give them Alt tags. This is my own view and is one which is hotly debated on-line especially when 1x1px images used to be used for spacing. However as far as I see it, if you are using a screen reader then you don't what it reading out stupid comments for images it does not need to see.
Try looking at Wikipedia's article on Web Accessibility. It contains lots of links to various sources of information for different countries, which may be useful depending on your target audience. The W3C was one of the original standards, but has plenty of critics.
Among other things.. provide "alt" and "title" attributes for every "img" tag.
Get a text-only browser like lynx. If your site works in lynx, it's likely to work for people who need screen readers or have other handicaps. It's no substitute for looking up the regulations, but it's a quick and easy check.
For another perspective, see the Dutch Government Web Guidelines.
The government provides a standard called section 508 that lays out what makes a site compatible.
A good resource is found at W3C site: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
A few things to keep in mind:
have a CSS link on each page that easily allows the font size to be changed.
Visually try to have appropriate presentation that is easy to read in a backwards S fashion.. left to right, back down.. etc..
ensuring that all the alt tags, etc, as mentioned in the other responses is vital.
see if there are some disability websites out there that specialize in testing your site. no harm in seeing what they list as being important to do.
make sure things are easy to read and find. this alone will make the job much easier.
There are many many resources on this topic. In fact, the danger is of information overload, rather than not enough information.
But an alternative approach is to think about your HTML page in generic terms, rather than the visual output you see in the web browser. If you wrote a piece of software that interpreted the website what would be helpful? This is a round-about way of saying use good semantics. My top tips would be to use standard XHTML for content and CSS for design. Also look up topics such as "progressive enhancement" and "behavioral Javascript".
But for resources:
The W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative: www.w3.org/wai
www.WebAIM.org
www.Accessify.com
www.CSSZenGarden.com for inspiration on how semantic markup can be styled to look very different.
It hasn't been mentioned yet so I figure I would mention it. If you want blind users to be able to use your site avoid flash. At the most 1% of flash I find on the internet is accessible.
A good list of resources about accessibility (colourblind screen-reader,typography etc) is here in design way.
For validation of web site and general documentation I use the W3C.
If you're developing in asp.net the opensource NAAK tool might be useful.
A must read is Jeffery Zeldman's "Designing with Web Standards"
Not sure if you are using Dreamweaver, but he has also just realeased a toolkit to validate your site for accessiblity.
I was listening to a recent episode of Hanselminutes where Scott Hanselman was discussing accessibility in web applications and it got me thinking about accessibility in my own applications.
We all understand the importance of semantic markup in our web applications as it relates to accessibility but what about other simple enhancements that can be made to improve the user experience for disabled users?
In the episode, there were a number of times where I slapped my forehead and said "Of course! Why haven't I done that?" In particular, Scott talked about a website that placed a hidden link at the top of a web page that said "skip to main content". The link will only be visible to people using screen readers and it allows their screen reader to jump past menus and other secondary content. It's such an obvious improvement yet it's easy not to think of it.
There is more to accessibility and the overall user experience than simply creating valid XHTML and calling it a day.
What are some of your simple tricks for improving the user experience for the vision impaired?
Creating accessible pages is something that is hard to think about if you have never done it. However, once you learn the basic concepts it is very easy to do in 95% of the cases. I will mostly be repeating what others have said, but:
Only use tables for tabular data
Make sure you use the semantic tools available to you via HTML. This means using TH with a scope attribute. Use <em> instead of <i> and <strong> instead of <b>. Use the acronym and abbrev tags. Use definition lists. I can expand on these things if anyone wishes.
One of the most important things is to use the label tag on input fields. For every input field, radio button, checkbox and textinput you should have:
<label for="username">Username:</label><input name="username" />
Add a "skip navigation" or "skip to navigation" depending on where big chunks of text are. If you are working on a government site this should be second nature that everything you're creating allows you to skip repetitive information.
Do not use colors for emphasis.
Ensure that all of your text is resizable. This pretty much means don't use "px" in your css.
I will re-emphasize this: create semantic pages. Use H tags for your titles. Use ul/li for navigation.
Use the alt attribute on all images. If you have a spacer gif... well.. don't. Otherwise, explain what the picture is of and what its significance is to the content it is associated with. don't use "a chart" as your alt tag. Use "Chart of YTD finances: $5,000 Q1, $4,000 Q2, $8,000 Q3" or something similar.
Provide closed captioning or transcripts for all audio and video components
The key here is to provide those with visual, hearing and motor impairments the same experience as those with standard physical capabilities. If you can't tab into a field, a screen reader can't either. If you can't click on the text next to a check box to select it, the screen reader doesn't know the text is related to the check box.
You should frequently view your site without stylesheets (ctrl-shift-s if you have Firefox and the Web Developer Toolbar) to see if the page makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to you as a sighted individual, it won't make sense to someone using a screen reader.
Check out Fangs
Fangs is an in-browser tool for Firefox that emulates what a screen reader “sees” when visiting a Web page. Its function is simple: to output a transcript of what a screen reader will read out to a user when a Web page is visited. It’s a helpful tool for quickly analyzing if you’ve structured your content effectively so that it’s understandable and usable by vision-impaired individuals, without forcing you to learn to use (and purchase) a screen-reader application such as JAWS or Windows Eyes.
It's been awhile since I've been at a job where we had to adhere to Section 508, but here's what I remember that hasn't been touched on by the other posters...
Only use tables for data. Do not use tables for layout if you can avoid it.
When using tables for data, your column headers should be nested in TH tags and you should use title and scope attributes. Your table tags should use the summary attribute.
Images should all have a value for the alt attribute that describes what's going on in the image and if the image serves no purpose (it's a shim image or something similar) then the alt attribute should be set to empty string.
Try using a text to speech reader and/or navigate only through the keyboard and/or turn off stylesheets. I believe you need to purchase JAWS, but I'm sure there are free screen readers out there. You need to experience a site through a screen reader to truly understand how difficult most web pages are to navigate without the cues that screen readers interpret.
"Vision impaired" includes colour-blindness. I used to work with someone who couldn't distinguish red from green too well, so any applications that used a traffic-light style interface was very difficult for him to use. In the industry we were working in, alerts in rows were colour-coded, so another form of display was useful for him, such as an extra column in the row with the text of the alert type ("emergency", "warning" etc).
Biggest problem with screen readers is usually tables to position things on your page. Screenreaders can't really handle those. Put stuff in div's in your html and put them in a sensible order. Then position the div's on your page with css. Use tables to display content that should be in a table.
The code for many web pages is structured as:
Header
Top Navigation
Left Navigation
Content
Footer
When structured this way, then the hidden link for "Skip to Main Content" is beneficial. However, with CSS layout, you may be able to reorder this so that you have:
Content
Header
Top Navigation
Left Navigation
Footer
You then use CSS positioning and floats to move these different elements around on the screen to make the page look the way you want it to look.
The main advantage to structuring a web page in this way is that if the browser doesn't support the CSS, then the content is first on the page. In addition to screen readers, this is beneficial for mobile devices and search engine spiders.
For partially partially sighted we need to make sure text is not excessivly small and contrasts the background color substantially. We should also make sure text is resizable by using relative sizing units such as em's rather than absolute units like px's (although, in my opinion, this is becoming less of an issue as browsers are increasingly favoring zooming over text resizing).
For users of screen readers, it's helpful to get a good idea of the way screen readers are actualy used. The following article presents guidlines based on observations of blind people browsing the web using screen readers; it's a little out of date now, but gives you a good feel for what will help screen reader users, and what won't:
http://redish.net/content/papers/interactions.html
Additionally, the American Foundation for the blind have a section of their website dedicated to advice for web developers on how to cater for vision impaired users.
In addition to the visually impared, we need to consider those with disabilities that prevent them from using a mouse, and also those with neurological disabilities. If anyone can provide resources giving advice on how to cater for those individuals, that would be great.