[Web4lib] AJAX interactivity and accessibility

[Richard Wiggins]

Jeremy,

I'd be glad to put you in touch with Jason -- will talk to him tomorrow.

As to whether you "gracefully degrade" or provide a specific choice to
connect to the accessible version --  that piece I think I can explain.
Michael Hudson heads the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities at
Michigan State.  He uses JAWS (is a beta tester for new versions) and other
screen readers for the blind.

When he demonstrates use of screen readers, he uses IE as the browser.  If a
site follows accessibility rules,  it works just fine for  him, and sighted
people in the audience can see his navigation, while hearing what links he's
encountering and following.

Michael argues that any time you make a dichotomy between the graphical
version and the "text-only" version, inevitably the two fall out of sync.
In fact, during one demo, the text-only version of our library site lacked
some content that the graphical site had.  In this case, incredibly ironic,
the graphical site described a lighting renovation project in the library.


I think the point is that the degradation should be seamless.  A user of
JAWS or other tools should simply encounter links that work.  They should
not have to make a choice to go to the version of the site that works for
them.

Jason can explain this far better than I.  I'll hook you up.

/rich


On 12/21/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/21/05, Richard Wiggins <richard.wiggins at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Following up on the recent thread, I asked a colleague who is very
> devoted
> > to Web accessibility to take a look at the U-W people search
> example.  Here
> > is his analysis:
> >
>
> Thanks very much for forwarding this on.  Is it possible for me to
> confer with him directly?  I'm pretty good with JS and am interested
> in accessibility.  I'd like this to be a dialog.
>
> Perhaps he'd like to influence the design of ajax toolkits?  ;-)
>
> > They do provide the alternative. But just like text-only
> > pages on web sites, alternatives are never a good option.
>
> I'm interested in this response because it surprises me.   I'm aware
> of graceful degredation or progressive enhancement or whatchamacallit,
> but I've always understood that an accessible alternative is
> acceptable when justified.
>
> Or, to put it another way, sometimes AJAX simply isn't something that
> can be layered on.  GMail is the best example here: the main UI is
> quite compelling, but its wholly enabled by AJAX.  GMail also provides
> an accessible alternate UI.
>
> So, to sum it up, I think progressive enhancement is advisable with
> practical, but alternates are an acceptable compromise when the
> features afforded by an inaccessible design are compelling.
>
> Can you see what holes he shoots in that?  I'd like to learn how to
> apply progressive enhancement more widely, which is what I take
> Keith's position to be.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>