Tag: Web Accessibility

Cognitive Web Accessibility Assessment: First Attempt, Part 2 of 3

~ John Rochford

This post is the second part of my first structured attempt to evaluate cognitive Web accessibility.  I am using WebAIM’s Cognitive Web Accessibility Checklist and its WAVE accessibility evaluation toolbar to assess the Web site of Down’s Syndrome Scotland.  For details, see Part 1.

This post covers the checklist sections of:

  • Multi-Modality;
  • Focus and Structure;
  • Readability and Language.

Assessment

  • Checklist Section: Multi-Modality
    • Guideline: Provide content in multiple mediums
      • I could find no instances of video- or audio alternatives to textual content.
    • Guideline: Use contextually-relevant images to enhance content
      • Many, particularly the header images, are not contextually relevant to pages’ textual content.  There is some contextually-relevant imagery.  Examples: Meet Keith, Titan Abseil.
    • Guideline: Pair icons or graphics with text to provide contextual cues and help with content comprehension
  • Checklist Section: Focus and Structure
    • Guideline: Use white space and visual design elements to focus user attention
      • Picture of Resources Page. Shows disproportionately-large header image.The header images focus user attention to themselves, not to the content of page bodies.  An example (pictured), is the Resources Information page.
    • Guideline: Avoid distractions
      • On assessed pages, the header images pull attention away from page-body content.  The home page has an element of text that is animated in the site’s default / standard view and in its optional views.
    • Guideline: Use stylistic differences to highlight important content, but do so conservatively
      • Important textual content is bold.  It is frequently large and red in color.  One point is recorded.
    • Guideline: Organize content into well-defined groups or chunks, using headings, lists, and other visual mechanisms
      • Pages have short paragraphs.  Headings are used, but incorrectly on some pages.
    • Guideline: Use white space for separation
      • White space is used to separate page elements.
    • Guideline: Avoid background sounds
      • There are no background sounds.
  • Checklist Section: Readability and Language
    • Guideline: Use language that is as simple as is appropriate for the content
      • I am ignoring this guideline. I do not understand how it is different from the one (below): “Maintain a reading level that is adequate for the audience”.
    • Guideline: Avoid tangential, extraneous, or non-relevant information
      • This guideline is met throughout the site.  One point is recorded.
    • Guideline: Use correct grammar and spelling
    • Guideline: Maintain a reading level that is adequate for the audience
    • Guideline: Be careful with colloquialisms, non-literal text, and jargon
      • This guideline is met throughout the site.
    • Guideline: Expand abbreviations and acronyms
    • Guideline: Provide summaries, introductions, or a table of contents for complex or lengthy content
      • This guideline is not applicable.
    • Guideline: Be succinct
      • This guideline is met throughout the site.
    • Guideline: Ensure text readability
      • These criteria meet this guideline: line height; text spacing and justification; sans-serif fonts; adequate text size; content-appropriate fonts; paragraph length; and adequate color contrast.
      • These criteria do not meet this guideline: Line length (exceeds 80 characters); and horizontal scrolling (necessary if text size is increased by 200% to 300%).

Results

Two of three possible points are recorded.  Combined with the points from Part 1, the subtotal is 4 of 5 points.

Notes

  • A point is recorded only if a site or a significant part of it consistently follows a guideline.  The Down’s Syndrome Scotland site did not meet this criterion for any of the Multi-Modality guidelines, so no related point is recorded.
  • I assessed Web pages only, not the many linked PDFs.

Cognitive Web Accessibility Assessment: First Attempt, Part 1 of 3

~ John Rochford ~ 2 Comments

This post describes my first structured attempt to evaluate cognitive Web accessibility.  I expect to learn about related best practices with my Plan to Assess Web Accessibility of 100 Cognitive Disability Organizations.  My working hypothesis is that their Web sites are more likely to implement accessibility features for people with cognitive disabilities than the Web sites of any other organization.

Assessment Tools

Summary of Assessment

My assessment uses a ten-point scale.  I record a point if even one guideline in each of the seven sections of WebAIM’s checklist has been met.  Yet, because I am just starting, I would like to see now how practical it is to find and to evaluate a feature representative of every guideline.

I have thus divided the assessment into three parts.  This blog post is the first.  It covers the checklist sections of:

  • Consistency; and
  • Transformability

In future blog posts, the remaining checklist sections will be assessed:

  • Multi-Modality;
  • Focus and Structure;
  • Readability and Language;
  • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
  • Assistive Technology Compatibility.

As well, I will record up to three points if the Web site attempts to meet W3C accessibility standards, if it has an accessibility statement, and if it explains how to use accessibility features.

Web Site Description

The Web site of Down’s Syndrome Scotland is the subject of my first review.  I chose it simply because I have noticed many U.K. Web sites make an effort to be usable by and accessible to people with cognitive disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities.  The Web site is bright and cheery. Pages have big photos and colorful elements. The home page is pictured below.

home page with pictures of children and young women with Down's Syndrome

Assessment: Consistency & Transformability

  • Checklist Section: Consistency
    • Guideline: Ensure that navigation is consistent throughout a site
      • On every page, the options of the top menu are the same.  It, the site search box, and the sidebar menu are always in the same place.  The sidebar menu’s options do necessarily change because they are related to each site section’s content.
    • Guideline: Similar interface elements and similar interactions should produce predictably similar results
      • Such elements include “Print this page”, “Email to a friend” and the search box. All produced predictably similar results. I could find no related inconsistencies elsewhere.  One point is recorded.
  • Checklist Section: Transformability
    • Guideline: Support increased text sizes
      • When text size is increased to 200% and to 300%, the text in the content section of the site’s pages looks fine.  Menu-, header- and footer text have an overlapping problem, causing illegibility.
    • Guideline: Ensure images are readable and comprehensible when enlarged
      • Most images are big. All of them and the smaller ones, with the exception of a Scottish Consortium logo, meet this guideline.  One point is recorded.
    • Guideline: Ensure color alone is not used to convey content
      • A red underline in the navigation menu is the only visible site-section indicator. There is no such indicator when styles are disabled.
    • Guideline: Support the disabling of images and/or styles
      • Site-content layout is logical and navigable with images and/or styles disabled.

Results

Two of two possible points are recorded.

Notes

  • I tested each guideline on at least three pages with Firefox.  I used Internet Explorer a few times to determine if effects were Firefox-specific.  (None were.)  To take less time, I will likely use Firefox exclusively for subsequent assessments unless a Web site or a feature is incompatible with it.
  • I tested the text-size and the image-enlargement guidelines with the Default Full Zoom Level 4.3 Firefox extension to assure that text sizes and zoom levels were increased to 200% and to 300% precisely.

Stop Using JAWS for Web Accessibility Testing?

~ John Rochford ~ 17 Comments

Since before Web-accessibility evaluation tools were available, developers have used JAWS to test their Web sites.  I have for so long that not using it never occurred to me.  I was spurred to consider the possibility at a recent demo about the newest version.  Eric Damery of Freedom Scientific, the maker of JAWS, proposed it.  This post details the reasons I am considering no longer using JAWS for Web accessibility testing.  Future posts will discuss alternatives.

Description of JAWS

JAWS is wonderful software.  For a person with a significant visual disability, it reads aloud or converts to Braille the content sighted people view on their computer screens.  Without the JAWS screen reader or one of its competitors, hundreds of thousands of people would be unable to use computers, nor would they be able to access the Web.

Using JAWS For Accessibility Testing

People who are blind have long been considered the most excluded from the Web.  This is the central reason Web accessibility standards have been focused on making sites accessible to them.  (An even larger excluded population are people with cognitive disabilities, but that is a topic for another day.)  Thus accessibility-minded developers have always considered it important to test sites with a screen reader.  JAWS is chosen for this because people with visual disabilities use it more, by far, than any other screen reader.

Another benefit of accessibility testing with JAWS is that sites made compatible with it also often work well for people with physical disabilities.  People who can not use a mouse, and/or who use a single-switch device instead of a keyboard, can navigate an accessible Web site in a way similar to that of JAWS users.  A simple approximation of this experience is to visit a Web site and attempt to navigate it using only the Tab key.

Reasons I Am Considering No Longer Using JAWS

  1. Though I have used JAWS to help test Web accessibility since the time (1995) it was first available, I know only enough about it for such testing.  Like all screen readers, JAWS is complicated.  For people who must use it to access a computer, many months are typically needed to learn it well.  Over the years, as I have hired developers and introduced them to Web accessibility and JAWS, it has been difficult for each to master it sufficiently for accessibility testing.  In part this is because they don’t have to use it all the time as people who are blind do.
  2. Another reason developers find JAWS troublesome is that the Web content it reads can not be visually tracked.  The temptation for sighted developers to watch JAWS is too great.  They are so dependent upon their sight that trying to get them to test Web sites while their screens are off, for instance, is difficult.
  3. Sighted developers inexperienced with JAWS, and sighted people to whom JAWS is being demonstrated, are often confounded by the way it reads Web content.  They expect it to read an entire Web page as they perceive they do.  Instead, JAWS reads Web pages in chunks and pauses before links.  This behavior closely mimics what sighted people really do, which is to skim Web page content.
  4. JAWS is expensive.  At the time of this writing, it costs $895 for most people, plus an annual software maintenance agreement (SMA) of $120.  Cost alone can be an initial barrier for people who are blind and, as a population, are chronically underemployed.  For developers who use JAWS to test accessibility, Freedom Scientific requires the more expensive professional version.  Its cost of $1,095 plus a $200 yearly SMA can be a barrier for developers without institutional backing.  To evangelize accessibility testing to other developers, I am interested in lower-cost or free alternatives.
  5. “Ninety percent of blind people don’t use a screen reader.”  Kevin Carey, Chairman of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), said that recently at an INMD seminar for Web developers.  He also said that is the reason Web sites should be made “self-voice”.  I imagine he was referring to people who are legally blind.  To access Web sites, they must use screen-magnifiers, text-to-speech software, and/or Web site widgets.

Notes

  • JAWS is only one of many tools my team has used to test Web site accessibility.  Most importantly, people with disabilities have always been hired to vet the accessibility of our Web sites as much as possible.
  • Reason 5 may mean I should place more emphasis on my experiments with text-size enlargement and incorporation of text-to-speech features.
  • The quotes attributed to Kevin Carey were provided to me by a person who attended the seminar.
  • I am interested in feedback.  Please comment.

[Editor’s Note: Readers may be interested in a follow-up post, “First Experiment with MAGic for Web Accessibility Testing“.]

Defining A Good Accessibility Statement

~ John Rochford ~ 2 Comments

This post lists the recommendations of eight Web articles I found that opine about a good accessibility statement. I also found three that advocate a site-help page be used instead.  All are referenced below.

Common Recommendations

The survey results are from articles published on the Web by accessibility-focused organizations or by site developers.  One, “Evaluating the Usability of Online Accessibility Information“, is based upon research. Publication years range from 2002 to 2009.

Mentioned In Most Articles:

  • Agreement
    • Do not just list accessibility features; explain how site visitors can use them.
    • Detail any site barriers to accessibility.
    • Provide contact info for people who experience accessibility problems.
    • Make the accessibility statement easy to locate on the Web site.
  • Disagreement
    • Don’t refer to how the site conforms to accessibility standards (50%).
    • Do refer to how the site conforms (50%). Place the info at the bottom of the statement.

Mentioned in Half of Articles:

  • Explain the site’s or the organization’s commitment to accessibility.
  • Do not use jargon.  Use clear, plain language targeted to the site’s audience.
    • Use an alternative to the term “accessibility” because many visitors do not know what it means.

Mentioned in at Least 2 Articles:

  • Separate accessibility-statement content into sections.
  • Reference authoritative, stable accessibility-help, i.e., The BBC’s My Web My Way.
  • Do not limit accessibility information to a specific impairment.
  • Do not assume knowledge visitors may not have, e.g., which browser they use.
  • Do not claim accessibility features if they are not present.

Relevancy To Current Assessment Plan

I decided to investigate this in preparation for my plan to assess the Web accessibility of 100 cognitive disability organizations. Specifically, I considered not just awarding a point for the presence of an accessibility statement, but for the presence of a good one.  To do that, I needed to determine agreed-upon characteristics.  Now that I have, I realize it would take too much time to assess the accessibility of the Web sites and whether or not their accessibility statements, if existent, are good.

Referenced Articles

Articles That Advocate Site-Help Pages Instead

Notes

  • I searched for recommendations by people who identified themselves as having a disability, but found none.
  • Did I miss an important resource?  Please comment or contact me.

50+ Readability Resources Related To Cognitive Web Accessibility

~ John Rochford

I have created an index of readability resources related to plain language; measurement tools; guidelines, research; content; symbols; and  free- and commercial products and services. At the time of this writing, there are over fifty. I will add more as I find them.

Characteristics Of Readability Listings

  • All have links to the original sources.
  • All are annotated with related information, primarily edited quotes from source pages.
  • The majority are free- and commercial products and services.  The rest are research articles.
  • The publication dates of original studies and articles range from 2001 to 2009 / present.

Links to Readability Index & RSS Feed

Notes

Technorati Verification Code = 63S9AZXDSA9K

Plan to Assess Web Accessibility of 100 Cognitive Disability Organizations

~ John Rochford

I will assess the efforts of 100 cognitive disability organizations to make their Web sites accessible to their constituencies.  This post is a description of my current plan.  I am open to suggestions for improvement.

Evaluation Criteria

I will base the assessment upon WebAIM’s latest Cognitive Web Accessibility Checklist, which has these sections:

  1. Consistency (of navigation);
  2. Transformability (increased text- and image sizes, etc.);
  3. Multi-Modality (of content);
  4. Focus and Structure (use of elements to focus attention, not distract it, etc.);
  5. Readability and Language (clear display of text and use of plain language);
  6. Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery (adequate instructions, feedback and error recovery)
  7. Assistive Technology Compatibility (use of alternative text, labels, headings, keyboard accessibility, etc.)

10-Point Measurement

On each Web site, I will look for the features described in the checklist. I will record a point if I find even one feature included in a checklist section. Thus up to seven such points could be recorded.

One point will be recorded if a site attempts to meet W3C accessibility standards (1.0 or 2.0).  I will judge this based upon a related site statement, or by a positive result from running WebAIM’s WAVE against up to three site pages.

One point will be recorded if a site has an accessibility statement.

One point will be recorded if a site explains how to use accessibility features.

Assessment-Progress Tracking

Upcoming blog posts will describe the assessment as I undertake each step.  It may well be that I revise my methodology after a few initial evaluations.

Index of Web Sites for 100+ Cognitive Disability Organizations

For this assessment, I created an index of Web sites of over 100 cognitive disability organizations.  To identify them, I used the same criteria listed in my previous blog post.

Notes

  • WebAIM is engaged in an effort to incorporate cognitive Web accessibility evaluation into WAVE. It may be WebAIM would find this assessment useful.  I will solicit feedback from Jared Smith, Associate Director of WebAIM.
  • Have a suggestion? Please post a comment or contact me.

50+ Web Sites Intended to be Accessible to People with Cognitive Disabilities

~ John Rochford

I have created an index of Web sites I have assessed as intending to be accessible to people with cognitive disabilities.  At the time of this writing, there are over fifty.  The criteria I used to identify them are essentially twofold:

  1. the site-sponsoring organizations serve people with cognitive disabilities;  and
  2. the sites incorporate at least one feature described in WebAIM’s latest “Cognitive Web Accessibility Checklist“.

I also limited my search to sites of countries where English is the dominant- or official language.  These included Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and those of The United Kingdom.  I plan to expand my search to other such countries, starting with the largest, India.

For the purposes of this project, I considered “cognitive disability” to include Alzheimer’s Disease, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Brain Injury, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities (Dyslexia & Dyscalculia) & Mental Illness (Bipolar, Depression & Schizophrenia).

Of organizations that serve people with Alzheimer’s Disease, Brain Injury, and/or Mental Illness, I have not found related Web sites that include cognitive-accessibility features.  I suppose these sites are not designed to be used by their constituencies, but instead by the people who serve them.

The vast majority of Web sites I found, which did include cognitive-accessibility features, were those of organizations that serve people with intellectual disabilities.  They make an apparent effort to be accessible to their constituencies.  I thus made a sub-list just for them, of which most are in England.  Note: In The United Kingdom, “intellectual disabilities” are also referred to as “Learning Disabilities” or “Learning Difficulties”.

Common accessibility features of these sites include a default-large text size; text-size enlargers; plain language; text-to-speech; contextually-relevant images; and graphics or icons paired with text.

Characteristics Of Web Site Listings

  • All are sorted by country.
  • All have links to the Web sites.
  • All are annotated with a description of the organization’s mission or the site’s purpose.  All annotations are edited quotes from the site’s pages (Home, About Us or Mission).

Links to Web Sites Indexes & RSS Feed

Future Indexes

In the near future, I will publish other such indexes. To see a list, please refer to my previous post, “Upcoming Indexes of Resources Related to Cognitive Web Accessibility“.

Notes

50+ Resources Related To Cognitive Web Accessibility Guidelines

~ John Rochford

I have created an index of resources related to cognitive Web accessibility guidelines. At the time of this writing, there are over fifty. I will add more as I find them.

Characteristics Of Guidelines Listings

  • All have links to the original sources.
  • All are annotated with related information, primarily edited quotes from source pages.
  • A few are original studies.  The majority are Web articles. The remainder are organizations that develop such guidelines.
  • The publication dates of original studies and articles range from 1999 to the present.

Links to Guidelines Index & RSS Feed

Future Indexes

I will soon publish other such indexes. To see a list, please refer to my previous post, “Upcoming Indexes of Resources Related to Cognitive Web Accessibility“.

Notes

50+ Assistive Technology Resources Related To Cognitive Web Accessibility

~ John Rochford

I have created an index of assistive technology resources related to cognitive Web accessibility. At the time of this writing, there are over fifty. I will add more as I find them.

Characteristics Of Assistive Technology Listings

  • All have links to the original sources.
  • All are annotated with related information, primarily edited quotes from source pages.
  • About half are original studies and articles. The rest are free- and commercial products and services.
  • The publication dates of original studies and articles range from 2001 to 2009 / present.

Links to Assistive Technology Index & RSS Feed

Future Indexes

I will soon publish other such indexes. To see a list, please refer to my previous post, “Upcoming Indexes of Resources Related to Cognitive Web Accessibility“.

Notes

100+ Resources Related To Cognitive Web Accessibility Research

~ John Rochford

I have created an index of research resources related to cognitive Web accessibility.  At the time of this writing, there are over one hundred.  I will add more as I find them.

Characteristics Of Research Listings

  • All have links to the original sources.
  • All are annotated with related information, primarily edited quotes from abstracts.
  • Most are original studies. Others include literature reviews, articles that cite research, and organizations that conduct related research.
  • Many have publication dates, from 1999 to the present.

Links to Research Index & RSS Feed

Future Indexes

I will soon publish other such indexes.  To see a list, please refer to my previous post, “Upcoming Indexes of Resources Related to Cognitive Web Accessibility“.

Note: Have a resource suggestion? Please contact me.