[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 15, 4:46 pm, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gordon... How do you propose I handle making my site accessible to those who are blind and deaf? Should all developers be required to code sites that can be printed in Braille by specially designed million dollar systems? All that would take is making sure the page content is well structured, then a Braille web browser can make sense of it quite easily with little skin off your nose in terms of extra work done. No Braille browsers that I am aware of, however, can run javascript. The Internet, even as many forms of media as it employs, simply cannot be for everyone, as the radio cannot accommodate the deaf and TV cannot accommodate the blind. Given that the internet is, at its heart, based on text processed by computers it has the potential to be far more accessible than the examples you cite. Render the text larger than normal and it's accessible to partially sighted users. Render it as Braille or read it through a text to speech program and the blind are supported. Provide textual descriptions of audio clips and you can support the deaf. Besides, the argument is not what the TV or radio can accommodate, because those aren't the industries we are working in. The industry we DO work in can be far more inclusive than the old media industries, but only if developers employ a little due care. I'm not insensitive to various people's needs, but there are always those whose needs are simply greater than *all* developers/companies can accommodate. Of course there's people who couldn't access your website no matter what you did, or could only access it if you really went massively out of your way to do so, but we're talking about people with more common disabilities, who could access your website without heroic efforts being made on your part. Don't forget there is one blind user out there who can make the difference between your site being successful and your site sinking into obscurity never to be visited by anybody. That user is called Google. As far as Google is concerned the whole internet is text. Ski resorts aren't required or expected to make their slopes and lifts accessible to those without legs. But they are expected to accommodate people with disabilities that wouldn't necessarily prevent them from skiing at all. Accommodation taken to the extreme bankrupts everyone, except for the government, which can always demand more tax money to pay for the accommodations. We're not talking about heroic efforts here, we're just talking about taking due care and consideration, just asking simple questions like What if this user doesn't have javascript or isn't loading images? My point is, there has to a degree of inaccessibility that is acceptable. Bottom line... everyone in everyone situation simply cannot be accommodated, as callous as that may sound. And my point is that it's far too easy for fully able-bodied developers to set the bar far too low because they don't know how much simple things like selected font sizes or use of colour or images can have a big impact on site users if they aren't so lucky as to also have flawless eyesight. And I believe that for people with poor eyesight (and as I age, mine is getting worse) a screen magnifier is a better overall solution than simple text-enlargement. I don't know about the Vista screen magnifier, but the one that comes with XP is just utterly awful. The Mac OS magnifier is a lot better, but still has its limitations, the main one being that the user has to constantly scroll to view the whole page. I want and need to be able to view photographs and graphics on the screen, not just read about them or have them described to me by a screen reader. Would it really kill you to provide an alt=description attribute to said images who those using screen readers can at least get the gist? -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:14 AM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant I'm sorry, but your attitude sucks. As a) a jQuery developer and b) a person with serious eyesight problems I always take great care to ensure code I develop doesn't impose accessibility issues. It really isn't that hard and your callous attitude towards doing work that's not only politically correct and the right thing to do but is also mandated by law in some places demonstrates a lazy slipshot work-ethic on your part. We're interviewing for new staff at the moment and I'm being asked to evaluate the PHP/Javascript guys as that's my central areas of responsibility. Any CV I had in front of me that demonstrated your kind of attitude would go straight in the bin. On Feb 14, 5:16 pm, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, a pixel could be a tiny dot or it could be 5mm. So, really, isn't saying font-size: 11px
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Just a quick note, jQuery.Accessible's main use is not the validator shown in the demo, that's just an addition. What I really wished to do is to actually improve accessibility with slight modifications of the dom. The plugin doesn't have many of those, 2 or 3. I hoped some people would contribute, but well :) Well, that's it. Cheers Ariel Flesler On Feb 14, 4:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies! Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;) From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an accessibility reminder. Which is a start :) @JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer. How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen?? You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper is a hack . On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjam...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 15, 2008 8:47 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a moment of delusion on Feb 15, 11:49 am, I wrote:
if (parseInt($(body).css(fontSize)) 20) { // font-size in pixels
// replace img with higher res source
}
On second thought... what event, exactly, is supposed to trigger this?
Where is my onfontsizechange?
See http://davecardwell.co.uk/javascript/jquery/plugins/jquery-em/
- Richard
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
In a moment of delusion on Feb 15, 11:49 am, I wrote:
if (parseInt($(body).css(fontSize)) 20) { // font-size in pixels
// replace img with higher res source
}
On second thought... what event, exactly, is supposed to trigger this?
Where is my onfontsizechange?
--Chris
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
That told me. I'll download it this minute! Sorry. On Feb 16, 12:51 pm, Ariel Flesler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a quick note, jQuery.Accessible's main use is not the validator shown in the demo, that's just an addition. What I really wished to do is to actually improve accessibility with slight modifications of the dom. The plugin doesn't have many of those, 2 or 3. I hoped some people would contribute, but well :) Well, that's it. Cheers Ariel Flesler
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 16, 8:49 am, Richard D. Worth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 15, 2008 8:47 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On second thought... what event, exactly, is supposed to trigger this? Where is my onfontsizechange? See http://davecardwell.co.uk/javascript/jquery/plugins/jquery-em/ Genius! Thanks, Richard! Chris
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Hi everyone, I'm weighing into this thread late, but wanted to make a couple of quick comments. I agree with Chris' point that accessibility isn't only for the benefit of people with disabilities; it provides all kinds of value to everyone who uses the Web. Perhaps you've heard of the electronic curb-cut effect: when sidewalks were redesigned to provide accessibility for wheelchairs, this change had a direct benefit on people using strollers, shopping carts, rollerblades, and so on. Everyone wins. Similarly, accessible Web applications have a major impact on everyone: sites are easier to navigate, to search, to repurpose, and can be viewed on a wide variety of devices. You'll notice that many of the W3C's accessibility guidelines are just good general design principles! Bottom line: accessibility makes the Web better. I also think it is quite feasible to make our sites--and our JavaScript toolkits--accessible to a broad range of needs and abilities. I'm working on the Fluid Project, which is dedicated to improving DHTML usability and accessibility. Excitingly, we just received a grant from the Mozilla Foundation to help the jQuery community make jQuery more accessible. We hope this will include keyboard navigation, ARIA semantics for assistive technologies, high contrast support, and more. Colin On 15-Feb-08, at 4:41 PM, Chris wrote: (Also, keep in mind that accessibility isn't only for the benefit of people with disabilities: Having an accessible site is one of the most robust search engine optimization strategies.) --- Colin Clark Technical Lead, Fluid Project http://fluidproject.org
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Wow!! What fantastic news :)) Please will you hurry up, so I can get on with using entertaining jQuery effects? Cherry ;) On Feb 16, 4:52 pm, Colin Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excitingly, we just received a grant from the Mozilla Foundation to help the jQuery community make jQuery more accessible. We hope this will include keyboard navigation, ARIA semantics for assistive technologies, high contrast support, and more.
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
I totally agree and this was part of the discussion my team had with them. If lowsrc was still supported this may not be a problem, but I am sure their are alternatives. On 2/14/08, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting… I've never thought of specifying image size in em's. The problem of image degradation would still be an issue, I'm sure, since an image may be specified for display in em's in a browser, but would still start its life in pixels (if it's not a vector graphic), unlike text, which isn't an enlargement of a static entity, but is created anew in larger dimensions. Something to think about, however… Rick *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:30 PM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant Rick, I have not gotten into it too much because it has not been a requirement, having just the alt/title tags is usually enough, but there has been talk over at the EPA accessiblity testing group to require setting width and height of images using EM instead of PX. This is so that if a user bumps up the text size (ctrl +) that the image will get bigger at the same ratio. Of course the text would need to be in EM also. This is something that I personally have not gotten into yet, but it may become a requirement for one of my contracts. On 2/14/08, *Rick Faircloth* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would be a start, but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would want a solution that allows me to view images, as well. Rick -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com http://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
I'm sorry, but your attitude sucks. As a) a jQuery developer and b) a person with serious eyesight problems I always take great care to ensure code I develop doesn't impose accessibility issues. It really isn't that hard and your callous attitude towards doing work that's not only politically correct and the right thing to do but is also mandated by law in some places demonstrates a lazy slipshot work-ethic on your part. We're interviewing for new staff at the moment and I'm being asked to evaluate the PHP/Javascript guys as that's my central areas of responsibility. Any CV I had in front of me that demonstrated your kind of attitude would go straight in the bin. On Feb 14, 5:16 pm, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, a pixel could be a tiny dot or it could be 5mm. So, really, isn't saying font-size: 11px proportional too? It sounds like your friend needs a better screen magnifier. Increasing just the font size in the browser is a hack. The one build into OS X (see 'universal access' in system prefs) is excellent. It just zooms the whole screen and everything on it (fonts, divs, gifs, etc.). -j On Feb 14, 11:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before (trying to) adopt jQuery, I've never used Javascript to control content. In reading hundreds of blogs by Javascript developers over the past weeks, I've been alarmed by their attitude to accessibility. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', and it's not just about minority users. One tiny example: a friend of mine has rubbish eyesight - she's not blind, she's fit to drive - she has her screen resolution set to LARGE so she can read it. The other day, she wanted to open a new 'internet-only' savings account. This is business; she has quite a lot of money to invest. The idiot who made that bank's website hadn't accounted for variable fonts; on her screen, the text overwrote the fields! So, she could not open this account, which is only available via the Web, because the form was unusable. The bank may as well have advertised the account as only available to savers with normal eyesight! Things like this, you can fix very simply by making all your sizes proportional - if my friend then has to scroll off the screen to fill the form, she don't care, as long as she can read complete it. All of my problems with jQuery, so far, have been to do with trying to solve basic accessibility issues. I understand why making a site do something feels more important! It's more exciting. But I wish you would, at the same time, ensure a readily-available alternative that can be used as well. Just a gentle reminder :) Cherry.http://jquery.cherryaustin.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
I like the idea of proportional images. My friend uses IE7, which does attempt to 'inflate' the whole screen. It makes the images look a bit rubbish, but it's better than missing them altogether! Thanks for passing this on, I'll experiment with em-sized images. It'll make setting the gap widths easier, at any rate! Cherry. On Feb 15, 3:30 am, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I have not gotten into it too much because it has not been a requirement, having just the alt/title tags is usually enough, but there has been talk over at the EPA accessiblity testing group to require setting width and height of images using EM instead of PX. This is so that if a user bumps up the text size (ctrl +) that the image will get bigger at the same ratio. Of course the text would need to be in EM also. This is something that I personally have not gotten into yet, but it may become a requirement for one of my contracts. On 2/14/08, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would be a start, but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would want a solution that allows me to view images, as well. Rick -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:51 PM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies! Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;) From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an accessibility reminder. Which is a start :) @JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer. How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen?? You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper is a hack . On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjam... -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
In his CSS Mastery book, Andy Budd explains how to create liquid
images with a percentage width and a max-width. Something like this:
img.liquid {
width: 25%;
max-width: 300px;
float: left;
padding: 2%;
}
This way you can set the img width to be a certain percentage of its
containing block and also stop the image from getting too large (at
least, in modern browsers). Images generally look fine when they're
set in CSS to be smaller than the actual size.
--Karl
_
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea of proportional images. My friend uses IE7, which does
attempt to 'inflate' the whole screen. It makes the images look a bit
rubbish, but it's better than missing them altogether!
Thanks for passing this on, I'll experiment with em-sized images.
It'll make setting the gap widths easier, at any rate!
Cherry.
On Feb 15, 3:30 am, Benjamin Sterling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick, I have not gotten into it too much because it has not been a
requirement, having just the alt/title tags is usually enough, but
there has
been talk over at the EPA accessiblity testing group to require
setting
width and height of images using EM instead of PX. This is so that
if a
user bumps up the text size (ctrl +) that the image will get bigger
at the
same ratio. Of course the text would need to be in EM also. This is
something that I personally have not gotten into yet, but it may
become a
requirement for one of my contracts.
On 2/14/08, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would
be a
start,
but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would
want a
solution that allows me to view images, as well.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:51 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies!
Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm
not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;)
From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an
accessibility
reminder. Which is a start :)
@JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer.
How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its
built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen??
You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper
is a
hack .
On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cherry,
There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard
Worth
and
myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right
away
that
help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508
compliant and
not
just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would
with the
Gov't,
ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of
view and
the
best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always
keep
accessibility on the front burner.
--
Benjamin
Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjam
...
--
Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp
://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Gordon... How do you propose I handle making my site accessible to those who are blind and deaf? Should all developers be required to code sites that can be printed in Braille by specially designed million dollar systems? The Internet, even as many forms of media as it employs, simply cannot be for everyone, as the radio cannot accommodate the deaf and TV cannot accommodate the blind. I'm not insensitive to various people's needs, but there are always those whose needs are simply greater than *all* developers/companies can accommodate. Ski resorts aren't required or expected to make their slopes and lifts accessible to those without legs. Accommodation taken to the extreme bankrupts everyone, except for the government, which can always demand more tax money to pay for the accommodations. My point is, there has to a degree of inaccessibility that is acceptable. Bottom line... everyone in everyone situation simply cannot be accommodated, as callous as that may sound. And I believe that for people with poor eyesight (and as I age, mine is getting worse) a screen magnifier is a better overall solution than simple text-enlargement. I want and need to be able to view photographs and graphics on the screen, not just read about them or have them described to me by a screen reader. And this has nothing to do with political correctness. I couldn't care less about being politically correct. I just believe in doing what's right. But, again, there has to be a line which people aren't expected to cross when it comes to accommodation. Rick -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:14 AM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant I'm sorry, but your attitude sucks. As a) a jQuery developer and b) a person with serious eyesight problems I always take great care to ensure code I develop doesn't impose accessibility issues. It really isn't that hard and your callous attitude towards doing work that's not only politically correct and the right thing to do but is also mandated by law in some places demonstrates a lazy slipshot work-ethic on your part. We're interviewing for new staff at the moment and I'm being asked to evaluate the PHP/Javascript guys as that's my central areas of responsibility. Any CV I had in front of me that demonstrated your kind of attitude would go straight in the bin. On Feb 14, 5:16 pm, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, a pixel could be a tiny dot or it could be 5mm. So, really, isn't saying font-size: 11px proportional too? It sounds like your friend needs a better screen magnifier. Increasing just the font size in the browser is a hack. The one build into OS X (see 'universal access' in system prefs) is excellent. It just zooms the whole screen and everything on it (fonts, divs, gifs, etc.). -j On Feb 14, 11:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before (trying to) adopt jQuery, I've never used Javascript to control content. In reading hundreds of blogs by Javascript developers over the past weeks, I've been alarmed by their attitude to accessibility. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', and it's not just about minority users. One tiny example: a friend of mine has rubbish eyesight - she's not blind, she's fit to drive - she has her screen resolution set to LARGE so she can read it. The other day, she wanted to open a new 'internet-only' savings account. This is business; she has quite a lot of money to invest. The idiot who made that bank's website hadn't accounted for variable fonts; on her screen, the text overwrote the fields! So, she could not open this account, which is only available via the Web, because the form was unusable. The bank may as well have advertised the account as only available to savers with normal eyesight! Things like this, you can fix very simply by making all your sizes proportional - if my friend then has to scroll off the screen to fill the form, she don't care, as long as she can read complete it. All of my problems with jQuery, so far, have been to do with trying to solve basic accessibility issues. I understand why making a site do something feels more important! It's more exciting. But I wish you would, at the same time, ensure a readily-available alternative that can be used as well. Just a gentle reminder :) Cherry.http://jquery.cherryaustin.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Wouldn't you still be limited to two sizes of image in your
scenario? We're not talking about a vector-graphic-type scaling, right?
It's a step in the right direction, however.
We need some kind of auto-scaling image format. JPEG2000, perhaps?
I've never worked with them, but I believe they're supposed to include
in the image or somehow, size accommodations.
Just more food for thought...
Rick
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:50 AM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 14, 11:31 pm, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've never thought of specifying image
size in em's. The problem of image degradation would
still be an issue, I'm sure, since an image may be
specified for display in em's in a browser, but would still start
its life in pixels (if it's not a vector graphic), unlike text, which isn't
an
enlargement of a static entity, but is created anew
in larger dimensions.
jQuery to the rescue!
if (parseInt($(body).css(fontSize)) 20) { // font-size in pixels
// replace img with higher res source
}
In Firefox at least, $.css(fontSize) increases when you hit ctrl-+.
If you set the font in ems in a stylesheet, $.css(fontSize) returns
pixels, and the returned value increases with each ctrl-+. If you set
the font-size inline though ($.css({fontSize: 1.2em}) ), then all
subsequent calls to $.css(fontSize) return the inline value.
I haven't tried other browsers.
It's worth playing around with. A plugin would be really cool. Imagine
this:
$(#myImage).setImage({low: myLowResImage.png, high:
myHighResImage.png}.
Maybe someone's done it already. I might if no one else wants to :)
Chris
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Gordon, I completely understand your frustration. As a suggestion, I think it's more important to sway people into realizing the importance of accessibility rather than trying to make them wrong for not doing it. JK -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:14 AM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant I'm sorry, but your attitude sucks. As a) a jQuery developer and b) a person with serious eyesight problems I always take great care to ensure code I develop doesn't impose accessibility issues. It really isn't that hard and your callous attitude towards doing work that's not only politically correct and the right thing to do but is also mandated by law in some places demonstrates a lazy slipshot work-ethic on your part. We're interviewing for new staff at the moment and I'm being asked to evaluate the PHP/Javascript guys as that's my central areas of responsibility. Any CV I had in front of me that demonstrated your kind of attitude would go straight in the bin. On Feb 14, 5:16 pm, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, a pixel could be a tiny dot or it could be 5mm. So, really, isn't saying font-size: 11px proportional too? It sounds like your friend needs a better screen magnifier. Increasing just the font size in the browser is a hack. The one build into OS X (see 'universal access' in system prefs) is excellent. It just zooms the whole screen and everything on it (fonts, divs, gifs, etc.). -j On Feb 14, 11:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before (trying to) adopt jQuery, I've never used Javascript to control content. In reading hundreds of blogs by Javascript developers over the past weeks, I've been alarmed by their attitude to accessibility. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', and it's not just about minority users. One tiny example: a friend of mine has rubbish eyesight - she's not blind, she's fit to drive - she has her screen resolution set to LARGE so she can read it. The other day, she wanted to open a new 'internet-only' savings account. This is business; she has quite a lot of money to invest. The idiot who made that bank's website hadn't accounted for variable fonts; on her screen, the text overwrote the fields! So, she could not open this account, which is only available via the Web, because the form was unusable. The bank may as well have advertised the account as only available to savers with normal eyesight! Things like this, you can fix very simply by making all your sizes proportional - if my friend then has to scroll off the screen to fill the form, she don't care, as long as she can read complete it. All of my problems with jQuery, so far, have been to do with trying to solve basic accessibility issues. I understand why making a site do something feels more important! It's more exciting. But I wish you would, at the same time, ensure a readily-available alternative that can be used as well. Just a gentle reminder :) Cherry.http://jquery.cherryaustin.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 15, 11:46 am, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Internet, even as many forms of media as it employs, simply cannot be for everyone, as the radio cannot accommodate the deaf and TV cannot accommodate the blind. The problem is that because it is at its base a stream of text, and because it is a breeding ground for new technologies, the World Wide Web _can_ be accessible to just about everyone. Without special accommodations. Following current best practices (starting with content, then adding style and behavior on top of that) goes a long way toward accessibility. (Also, keep in mind that accessibility isn't only for the benefit of people with disabilities: Having an accessible site is one of the most robust search engine optimization strategies.) Yes, absolute universal accessibility is impossible. There will always be that one guy who is deaf-blind and only speaks an obscure indigenous Indonesian sign language, and the cost of getting the message to him will often far outweigh the benefit. But the things we can do right now with minimal extra effort (and a good deal of foresight) can make the Web one of the most accessible communication platforms around. Oh, and TV can accommodate the blind: http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/mag/services/description/ And I believe that for people with poor eyesight (and as I age, mine is getting worse) a screen magnifier is a better overall solution than simple text-enlargement. I want and need to be able to view photographs and graphics on the screen, not just read about them or have them described to me by a screen reader. I think the biggest drawback of screen magnifiers is that they inevitably require horizontal scrolling, which, aside from being annoying as all get out, can make it difficult or impossible to get one's bearings on a Web page. There are pluses and minuses to everything. --Chris
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
On Feb 14, 11:31 pm, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've never thought of specifying image
size in em's. The problem of image degradation would
still be an issue, I'm sure, since an image may be
specified for display in em's in a browser, but would still start
its life in pixels (if it's not a vector graphic), unlike text, which isn't an
enlargement of a static entity, but is created anew
in larger dimensions.
jQuery to the rescue!
if (parseInt($(body).css(fontSize)) 20) { // font-size in pixels
// replace img with higher res source
}
In Firefox at least, $.css(fontSize) increases when you hit ctrl-+.
If you set the font in ems in a stylesheet, $.css(fontSize) returns
pixels, and the returned value increases with each ctrl-+. If you set
the font-size inline though ($.css({fontSize: 1.2em}) ), then all
subsequent calls to $.css(fontSize) return the inline value.
I haven't tried other browsers.
It's worth playing around with. A plugin would be really cool. Imagine
this:
$(#myImage).setImage({low: myLowResImage.png, high:
myHighResImage.png}.
Maybe someone's done it already. I might if no one else wants to :)
Chris
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Very clearly argued, Chris - and this is too often forgotten! Following current best practices (starting with content, then adding style and behavior on top of that) goes a long way toward accessibility. (Also, keep in mind that accessibility isn't only for the benefit of people with disabilities: Having an accessible site is one of the most robust search engine optimization strategies.) At the other end of the scale from your don't-give-a-darn merchants, you find people agonising about what to do if a user has javascript *and* images are turned off - the answer is nothing, IMO, because they're essentially using a text browser and your page structure will provide all the information flow they need (won't it?). It will also be text-to-voice optimised that way, so you don't have to worry about all those extra CSS bits for sound projection (thank goodness). It's quite funny to switch your computer's native voice reader on, then visit a site with a jumbled layout and/or styles javascript all over the place ;) And, hey, that's what the Googlebot's reading, too! It is noticeable, in this thread, that the most vocal accessibility advocates are those with some personal experience. A Flash developer friend of mine experienced a Damascene conversion to accessible navigation after he broke his wrist! It just would be nice to see a little more thought given to the issue overall (especially in the Javascript world). Incidentally, websites already fall within the Disability Discrimination Act, here in the UK. Nobody's brought a test case, yet - I hoped my friend would make an official complaint about that bank, but we'll have to wait for someone else to do it. It should wake a few clients up, at least ;) On Feb 15, 9:41 pm, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 15, 11:46 am, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Internet, even as many forms of media as it employs, simply cannot be for everyone, as the radio cannot accommodate the deaf and TV cannot accommodate the blind. The problem is that because it is at its base a stream of text, and because it is a breeding ground for new technologies, the World Wide Web _can_ be accessible to just about everyone. Without special accommodations.
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Well, a pixel could be a tiny dot or it could be 5mm. So, really, isn't saying font-size: 11px proportional too? It sounds like your friend needs a better screen magnifier. Increasing just the font size in the browser is a hack. The one build into OS X (see 'universal access' in system prefs) is excellent. It just zooms the whole screen and everything on it (fonts, divs, gifs, etc.). -j On Feb 14, 11:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before (trying to) adopt jQuery, I've never used Javascript to control content. In reading hundreds of blogs by Javascript developers over the past weeks, I've been alarmed by their attitude to accessibility. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', and it's not just about minority users. One tiny example: a friend of mine has rubbish eyesight - she's not blind, she's fit to drive - she has her screen resolution set to LARGE so she can read it. The other day, she wanted to open a new 'internet-only' savings account. This is business; she has quite a lot of money to invest. The idiot who made that bank's website hadn't accounted for variable fonts; on her screen, the text overwrote the fields! So, she could not open this account, which is only available via the Web, because the form was unusable. The bank may as well have advertised the account as only available to savers with normal eyesight! Things like this, you can fix very simply by making all your sizes proportional - if my friend then has to scroll off the screen to fill the form, she don't care, as long as she can read complete it. All of my problems with jQuery, so far, have been to do with trying to solve basic accessibility issues. I understand why making a site do something feels more important! It's more exciting. But I wish you would, at the same time, ensure a readily-available alternative that can be used as well. Just a gentle reminder :) Cherry.http://jquery.cherryaustin.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. On 2/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before (trying to) adopt jQuery, I've never used Javascript to control content. In reading hundreds of blogs by Javascript developers over the past weeks, I've been alarmed by their attitude to accessibility. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', and it's not just about minority users. One tiny example: a friend of mine has rubbish eyesight - she's not blind, she's fit to drive - she has her screen resolution set to LARGE so she can read it. The other day, she wanted to open a new 'internet-only' savings account. This is business; she has quite a lot of money to invest. The idiot who made that bank's website hadn't accounted for variable fonts; on her screen, the text overwrote the fields! So, she could not open this account, which is only available via the Web, because the form was unusable. The bank may as well have advertised the account as only available to savers with normal eyesight! Things like this, you can fix very simply by making all your sizes proportional - if my friend then has to scroll off the screen to fill the form, she don't care, as long as she can read complete it. All of my problems with jQuery, so far, have been to do with trying to solve basic accessibility issues. I understand why making a site do something feels more important! It's more exciting. But I wish you would, at the same time, ensure a readily-available alternative that can be used as well. Just a gentle reminder :) Cherry. http://jquery.cherryaustin.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com http://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies! Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;) From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an accessibility reminder. Which is a start :) @JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer. How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen?? You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper is a hack . On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would be a start, but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would want a solution that allows me to view images, as well. Rick -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:51 PM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies! Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;) From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an accessibility reminder. Which is a start :) @JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer. How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen?? You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper is a hack . On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Rick, I have not gotten into it too much because it has not been a requirement, having just the alt/title tags is usually enough, but there has been talk over at the EPA accessiblity testing group to require setting width and height of images using EM instead of PX. This is so that if a user bumps up the text size (ctrl +) that the image will get bigger at the same ratio. Of course the text would need to be in EM also. This is something that I personally have not gotten into yet, but it may become a requirement for one of my contracts. On 2/14/08, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would be a start, but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would want a solution that allows me to view images, as well. Rick -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:51 PM To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant Wow, I really appreciate both of your quick replies! Benjamin, I have seen yours Richard's contributions - knowing I'm not all alone is what's keeping me motivated ;) From the accessibility plugin's demo page, it serves an accessibility reminder. Which is a start :) @JMoore - my point is this: My friend's computer is *her* computer. How can it be right to say she shouldn't choose to make use of its built-in capabilities to read what's on the screen?? You may as well say that using a magnifier to read the newspaper is a hack . On Feb 14, 6:23 pm, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cherry, There are quite a few of us that would agree with you, Richard Worth and myself to name two, there is plugin but could not find it right away that help with accessibility. Everything I do has to be 508 compliant and not just because I feel it is the right thing to do, but I would with the Gov't, ie. epa, army.mil, and so on. So I understand your point of view and the best suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing and always keep accessibility on the front burner. -- Benjamin Sterlinghttp://www.KenzoMedia.comhttp://www.KenzoHosting.comhttp://www.benjaminsterling.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com http://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant
Interesting. I've never thought of specifying image size in em's. The problem of image degradation would still be an issue, I'm sure, since an image may be specified for display in em's in a browser, but would still start its life in pixels (if it's not a vector graphic), unlike text, which isn't an enlargement of a static entity, but is created anew in larger dimensions. Something to think about, however. Rick From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:30 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: a small accessibility rant Rick, I have not gotten into it too much because it has not been a requirement, having just the alt/title tags is usually enough, but there has been talk over at the EPA accessiblity testing group to require setting width and height of images using EM instead of PX. This is so that if a user bumps up the text size (ctrl +) that the image will get bigger at the same ratio. Of course the text would need to be in EM also. This is something that I personally have not gotten into yet, but it may become a requirement for one of my contracts. On 2/14/08, Rick Faircloth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does your friend do about images? Enlarging the text would be a start, but if I were having great difficulty viewing the screen, I would want a solution that allows me to view images, as well. Rick
