Date:    Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:42:26 +0000

From:    S O'Brien <smo-brien@LIONESS.DEMON.CO.UK>

Subject: Re: web design issues

<p>

Re: web design issues

</p><p>

I have researched accessibility issues and the Web for some time.

Only one thing seems to be certain - some of the problems remain

the same (poor design, lack of forethought), but the technical

problems keep changing. It is interesting to consider that many

of the problems which are encountered by disabled Web users are

common to those countries of the world which have limited bandwidth

access to the Internet. Because of the intermittent telephone access,

lack of availability of internet service providers, old equipment

which does not support graphical interfaces, slow modems etc. a

recent correspondent from Central America described himself as

"GUI-blind": the writer was furious at the lack of care that Web

authors take to ensure that their Web pages are globally accessible -

his ire was such that he seemed to be accusing such authors of disdain

for the needs of himself and others like him.

<p>

A sample of static problems:

<ul>

<li>graphics and lack of alt texts;



<li>page toys (such as ornate bullet points which the reader would

not miss much) which are not identified as such in the alt text,

leaving the users to wonder about what they are missing;



<li>meaningless alt texts and links such as "click here";



<li>the way the text is written without consideration

of non-GUI users, and without an awareness of the multiplicity of

platforms and browsers that may be in use - consider a college site

which reads "Names of staff members appear in green";

</ul><p>

authors with no understanding of the liberating principles of html

(hypertext markup language) whereby document-layout and

hyperlink-specification is embedded in tags and directions and

this instructs the Web browser how to display the contents of

the pages on your computer whatever the platform such as Macintosh,

Microsoft Windows, or UNIX. Authors continue to design to suit not

only their own platform,but their own model of machine, size

of screen etc. - consider the use of Netscapist font sizes, display

tricks etc which may look fantastic on the authors' screens, but

hopeless elsewhere, such as centering, inappropriate use of headers

(which can prevent a user from deriving a useful table of contents)

etc;</p>

<p>

the lack of thought which goes into the design and use of tables.

</p>

Technical problems change: until comparatively recently there were

significant difficulties with the robustness of screen readers and

GUI platforms - with obvious implications for Web browsing -  these

now seem to have been substantially ameliorated. Technical problems

caused by authors love of glitz and pizazz (I am dubious about the

spelling of this last word, but it isn't in any of my dictionaries

<grin>) such as the ghastly animated text which seems to infest some

sites just because the facility is there in Internet Explorer.

<p>

Some of the latest technical problems which I expect to change in the

near future?

</p>

Lack of compatability and accessibility for Netscape's popular

feature Frames. (As a side point - I can't believe the arrogance

of authors who effectively dictate the browser you should use

before you are allowed to look at their sites. It is sometimes possible

to gain alternative access to the html documents but not all of the

authors do this. Some browsers are so strict about the html they

enforce that they will not even display the familiar warning tag

about your non-Frame compliant browser, and will just generate

errors). Other browsers will probably become capable of

displaying Frames but this doesn't mean that they will solve the

accessibility issue for users with disabilities;

<ul>

<li>forms, are still a major technical bugbear on some sites;



<li>file formats - the whole area of ascii (plain text) provision,

pdf (portable document format) etc. the arguments concerning which

have been well rehearsed on this list;



<li>inclusion of video files, sound clips etc. with no concern

for whether they are accessible to the user;

</ul><p>

I anticipate an upsurge in the number of VRML sites (how many of

you have already met and wondered about the .wrl file extension)

now that authoring tools are easier, cheaper, and available for

the PC.

<p>

If there were an Olympic medal for boring the world about accessibility

and the Web, I would be in the running to increase the UK's measly

medal count <ouch>. However, I will stop here with a quotation from

a recent article I wrote (it will be available on our Web site fairly

soon) which I have little reason to expect to retract in the near

future:

<p>

Creating Web pages does not require expensive software, or

hard-won programming skills: sadly, it can also not demand an

iota of relevance, discipline, talent, or common sense.

<p>

Best wishes

<p>

S. O'Brien

Editor: Ability - Jnl of the British Computer Society Disability Group<br>

email:smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk

Visit Ability's Web page at URL

http://dils2.lboro.ac.uk/lsap/enablenet/enablenet.html