|
Would A New Standard Make A Blind Bit Of Difference?
|
12 February 2001 Edition
Previous Edition
|
HTML, HTTP, XML, SMTP, TCP -- when it comes to the Internet the list of standards
goes on and on so do we really need yet another?
Well if you're visually impaired and want to get full value out of the Internet
then the answer is -- yes, most certainly.
While the Internet has become an incredibly valuable tool for the visually
impaired, it also has the potential to be incredibly frustrating -- because
many websites are almost totally unusable due to their reliance on highly
graphical interfaces or technology incompatible with the special reader
software often used by the blind.
An example of just how some in the visually impaired community are becoming
annoyed by this disregard for their needs was seen last year when the
Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games was the target of
a complaint
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission over its website.
In his complaint, Tom Worthington does a good job of outlining the basics
required for a site to be easily used by those with a visual disability and
who rely on special software to assist them -- but I don't think this goes
far enough.
While fancy layouts, distinctive formats and eye-catching composition can
go a long way towards making a visually-oriented website memorable and
easy to use, none of this has any positive effect when the user is unable
to see the webpage -- relying instead on text-to-speech translation.
The
W3C
guidelines for web accessibility are designed to provide a minimal level
of access for the disabled -- but why can't we go a step further?
Wouldn't it be great if a standard were devised that made it even easier for
those who don't have the benefit of sight?
How about special tags for defining menu elements -- thus allowing unsighted
users to hit a menu-key and go straight to the navigation elements on a page?
What about the ability to have alternative text which is used only by the
visually impaired? This text can be more concise and perhaps written with
the limitations or features of text-to-speech translation software in mind.
There are many areas where a small amount of work on the part of a site designer
could make a huge difference to the effectiveness of a website when visited
by someone not enjoying the benefit of sight.
Here's my prediction -- as online publishers become increasingly focused on
generating elusive revenues, we will see some of the smarter ones come to
the realisation that catering for small but important sections of the online
audience (such as those who are visually impaired) might pay big dividends.
Maybe the NZ Government is about to lead the way if
this story
is anything to go by.
Am I talking through a hole in my head on this matter? Do the blind deserve
special consideration when designing your website or should they just be
asked to "make do"?
Share your thoughts by sending me your feedback.
Is The IRD Watching YOU? (follow-up)
I have received reports from another website operator that they have
discovered evidence of a visit by the "IRD-WebCrawler/0.00" -- have
you checked your log yet?
Please let me know if you find anything.
The Weekly Is Downloadable
If you haven't received your Aardvark Weekly by email, you can
download it here. Subscribers
to the emailed version will get each version several days before it appears
here.
As always, your feedback is welcomed.
|
Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it
now!
|
|
