Hi Michael, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply any mendacity on your part. I'm fully appreciative and admiring of the BBC's long-term support for accessibility, including BETSIE, informal support for my BBC-using programs, and use of accessibility features like skiplinks. That said, I recognise the difficult legal, political and regulatory environment you're in: otherwise I'd be writing "Don't use microformats: publish a podcast of your programmes with DRM-free video and audio content with audio descriptions at the other end instead" and that wouldn't be helpful to you, right? Smile.
I'm arguing the following: 1 You have a large potential base of non-technical, vision-impaired users. They really are not technical. They often don't understand the Windows Start menu, how Windows Explorer works, the difference between an executable and a shortcut on the desktop, the difference between HTML as opposed to text format email. They have a set of heuristic techniques and processes they have been shown by volunteers or nephews and follow them to perform the task they want to do. Some have JAWS, lots more have NVDA or Thunder, few know how to change their preferences or what that means. They turn on the computer and press the keys they have learned to press to do what they want, and that's it. If what they get out isn't what they expect, they'll try the keys again or restart the computer. It's incredibly time-consuming, but it's independent activity. 2 There was a recent discussion on the British Computer Association of the Blind mailing list about how hard blind users found the iPlayer pages: well-constructed, fully-accessible web pages, with accessible Flash embedded. Good, accessible design from the BBC as always, but still people having problems. Why? Because it's really difficult to use a screenreader, relative to a sighted person. The cost profile is higher and different, in formal usability terms. The solution (I believe) is to provide tools (programs) that let vision-impaired users do the things they want to do easily. For example, I have a well-regarded (free) Accessible BBC Listen Again program that scrapes your BBC Listen Again pages and presents the contents as an alphabetically-ordered list. Menus control the station. Hit Return to Play, Escape to Stop. Volume resets when you close the program in case the user accidentally turns it off and can't get any subsequent sound. The point is not to provide every feature of your Listen Again pages, like the links to the station websites, but to make it really really easy to do the core function: listen to the radio with just a few buttons. I'd like to do this with your television stations, and with your old archived output when it's available. If you end up with a bunch of web pages I'll write a scraper/crawler, but if you use microformats it'll make it much easier and more reliable for me to produce a putative "Accessible BBC Archive" program. And if microformats spread from you to other sites, then more data will become machine readable and more simple tools or scripts for vision-impaired users will be possible. Hence my support. 3 Working in web accessibility leads one to mix with highly-technical professional screenreader users. They should not, I argue, be your target audience. A highly-technical JAWS user will write a script to get round ABBR problems and distribute it to other users, or just use the webpages for sighted people, or turn off ABBR again. If microformats take off then Freedom Scientific will make sure that script ships with JAWS anyway, and all the vendors will follow suit. I am, therefore, as a professional working in software for vision-impaired people, not worried about the impact on screenreader users of the ABBR tag, since I think the temporary and minor disbenefits are outweighed by the major benefits. Finally, on people with cognitive problems: a significant proportion of the UK population has cognitive, literacy, and learning difficulties. How much time do you spend on their needs in web design? A far smaller proportion are screenreader users: how much time do you spend on their needs in web design - like now? There is a strong argument that the needs of people with cognitive problems are not properly addressed. I don't have any answers for that one, I must stress, but it does seem to me that the needs of screenreader users have historically been politically more important in web design - possibly because people with cognitive problems have more alternative technologies and sources of content, where for blind people the Internet is unique as a source of news, entertainment, communication and independence. All the best, Dr. Alasdair King WebbIE http://www.webbie.org.uk On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Michael Smethurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 22/5/08 19:04, "Alasdair King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Michael Smethurst wrote: >> "Of 4 users 2 had abbreviation expansion turned on." >> >> Ah, but what was your sample group? Were they, by any chance, >> highly-able professionals, probably with a business interest in web >> design and accessibility? Or were they little old ladies using Thunder >> or NVDA because those screenreaders are free? > > The honest answer is I don't know. But I'm not sure why highly-able > professionals shouldn't be able to find out what's on telly tonight. > >> >> Apparently JAWS has ABBR support off but ACRONYM on by default, which >> surprised me. Anyway, I have one user whose screenreader doesn't >> support ABBR (Thunder), and one who uses JAWS and leaves it off so >> far. I'll mail you details privately. > > Thanks, any data appreciated > > Abbreviation expansion is not our only problem. Screenreaders can also be > set up to read *all* title attributes - read tool tips and expand > abbreviations settings are orthogonal. With tool tips reading turned on > users get the full datetime read out when they float their mouse over the > abbreviation. Anecdotally this seems to be a far more common configuration > for partially sited users. >> >> Interestingly, I think your "what about people with cognitive problems >> getting confused?" point might be of more real-world importance, but >> since people cognitive problems are not as powerful politically they >> probably aren't a problem for you. > > Don't want to sound prickly here but our intentions are strictly honourable. > We're not doing this to pick holes with microformats or tick bbc boxes or > avoid being sued. We're just a bunch of developers trying to do 'the right > thing'. Whether people with cognitive problems are politically powerful or > not if they can't use our site we're doing something wrong. > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance > on it and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > -- Alasdair King _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
