Forum Moderators: phranque
Let's talk about the whole accessibility issue and get it out in the open. It is not as difficult as many think and a comprehensive Q&A on the topic is definitely in order.
You don't need to buy tools, pay consultants, or be impressed by buzz words or W3C recommendations.
All you need to do is view your site with a character-based web browser, such as the free Lynx, and see if it's usable.
This will clearly illustrate (sic) any problems your site has, and you can then take steps to address them.
As an example, try Target.com's web site with Lynx....
Matt
I've been trying to make the sites I design as accessible as possible for the past year now and I am really enjoying it.
What are some of the things you've done to make sure that your site is accessible? What elements have you had to focus on to make your site accessible?
I would say more accessible:
What has been the most difficult part of the transition for you?
I would say moving away from tables and using percentages as text size. It's basically almost like re-learning how to design sites and how to use ids and classes properly
What have been the rewards of making your site accessible?
I probably benefit more that anyone as I like to whizz round at high speed using only a keyboard.
Of course, accesskeys are not perfect as there is no widely accepted conventions on what keys should do what; and browsers make it harder to find a consistent set that doesn't trigger some browser function.
The UK Government's default list is a good starting point.
S - Skip navigation
1 - Home page
2 - What's new
3 - Site map
4 - Search
5 - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
6 - Help
7 - Complaints procedure
8 - Terms and conditions
9 - Feedback form
0 - Access key det
And alistpart have some nice ideas:
[#*$!.com...]
There are some controversy about accesskeys, though, because some of them interfere with built-in browsers' shortcut keys (browsers as in all types: visual or screen readers)
some of the things I forgot:
Turn off you montior, and use your site. I mean really use it. Try to order something. Find a specific nugget of information. Use the contact form.
If you then think accessibility is easy, well done.
Making sure to use proper anchor text (also good for SEO).
Let's take out the (also good for SEO) part of the equation and just focus on using proper anchor text. I'm sure most of us have seen the statements about not using "Click Here" or "More Information". There is a reason for this and accessibility is the primary one.
Think about the user who is using a Screen Reader. If you were to "listen" to what your anchor text is saying, does it best describe the destination of the link if clicked? That's the bottom line when defining anchor text, describing the destination. Click Here or More Information fails miserably at that.
But, there is an alternative if you cannot get creative with your anchor text, you can use the title attribute to help with accessibility. So, those with Screen Readers get a "titled" description of the linked resource. For example...
<a title="Link to instructions for using your new JAWS Software" href="/jaws/instructions/">More Information</a>Always using a sitemap (also good for SEO)
Again, let's take the SEO part of the equation and think about the visitor for a moment. The site map is an integral part of any website and serves an important purpose in the scheme of things. Larger sites may use multiple site maps in place of one large one. A site map page that has over 100 links may be a bit on the large side. It might be time to start thinking about using secondary site maps, one for each main section of the site.
Download connect outloud. Turn off your montior, and use your site. I mean really use it. Try to order something. Find a specific nugget of information. Use the contact form. If you then think accessibility is easy, well done.
Yikes! That was an experience. I spent my 24 hour trial period surfing with my eyes closed. I think I managed to get through a couple of pages before opening my eyes and claiming defeat. Now I really have compassion for those using assistive technologies to surf the net.
I visited a couple of pages that I knew were over SEO'd. Oh, what a mess that was.
Definitely an annoying experience. The difference between a page that is built correctly and a page that isn't, is really noticeable using a piece of software like this.
Of course, accesskeys are not perfect as there is no widely accepted conventions on what keys should do what; and browsers make it harder to find a consistent set that doesn't trigger some browser function.
I went this route a couple of years ago. Researched all that I could on Access Keys. Implemented them and tested them and have been testing on occassion since then.
Problem is, the browsers don't all react the same way to using the Alt key, particularly Opera. And then you have software specific alt commands that may interfere with the ones being used on the page. It gets real tricky and until there is a defined list of Access Keys (in addition to the UK), I will consider using them again.
I've found that if the Tab Order of your page is logical, the Access Keys may not be as important.
Disconnect your mouse, unplug it, turn it off, whatever, just deactivate it.
Now, visit one of your sites. Can you navigate and browse the site with your keyboard only? For those using IE, you basically tab your way through pages. Each time you press the tab key, you transfer focus to the next element in sequence based on the structure of the page.
Once you have focus on a link, you press enter to proceed to the linked resource. Do this from page to page. Try searching if a search form is available. Try placing an order if ecommerce is available.
If, you are able to do all of the above, without using a mouse, you are probably "very close" to WAI-A accessbility.
It all comes down to your keyboard and how the site you are browsing is structured. And, to take this one step further, turn off images while you are going through this process. Do the alt attributes give you a proper description of the images they are replacing?
