I posted awhile back about some great accessibility tools out there, such as the Firefox Accessibility Extension and WebAIM’s WAVE. (Wow, that was a year ago??)

Using automated tools are a tremendous help in figuring out problematic code or color contrasts that just don’t feel like they are sufficient. However, your testing shouldn’t end there!

Similarly, don’t assume that a non-disabled person testing their site or application with assistive technologies is good enough. I’ve been asked by well-intentioned fellow non-disabled web designers, “Well, how can we get our hands on a screen reader to do testing?”

The best way to ensure your experience is as accessible as possible is to reach out to actual disabled users for testing.

This hit home for me when I watched Scott Mayer (Multiple Facets of Accessible Design – Scott Mayer presentation) demonstrate how blind users navigate both good and bad experiences via a screen reader.

For one, the speed at which the automated voice spoke was surprisingly rapid — and he even slowed it down for our benefit! Two, a sighted user trying their hand at a screen reader just isn’t the same as someone who is completely dependent on one and uses it day in and out.

Sure, a web surfer with hearing can plug their ears and watch a video, but afterwards, they can simply unplug them and go about their lives. A deaf user doesn’t have that luxury. You may think a pretend session gives you a glimpse into their world, but it doesn’t really.

Having access to disabled testers may be challenging depending on the resources in your area. There are some alternatives on the web, such as forums like the Accessify Forum, where you can post a site and ask for feedback.

The bottom line is that, whenever possible, you should use multiple avenues of testing for accessibility, the best being actual disabled users who could be part of your audience.

Tags: accessibility tools, assistive technology, screen readers, user testing

Let’s face it — when you work in a corporate environment, you’re exposed to a ridiculous amount of corporate jargon. Sometimes, it’s in the form of acronyms. Other times, it’s slang terms developed in the business world.

Example: “Let’s talk offline.”
Example: “We’ll have a go/no-go meeting.”

As easy a target as it is, I’m not about to go into the general absurdity of office lingo and corporate speak — I’ll leave that to great sites like Corporate Trash.

“Dovetailing” (there’s another one) with jargon catchphrases are excessive acronyms. I suppose it’s easier to speak with fewer words by making everything an acronym, but it’s painful to anybody on the outside trying to decipher the code.

Regardless to how easier it makes things to talk in such ways internally, it poses a user experience and accessibility problem if you litter your outward-facing web site with them.

Let’s start with acronyms. While some like FYI (for your information) are reasonably well-known, others may not be. Don’t assume that the outside world is on to all your shortcuts. Be sure to spell them out or use the <acronym> or <abbr> tag. Most screen reader devices read aloud the associated title tag, such as <acronym title=”For Your Information”>FYI</acronym>. In the browser, a dotted line appears under the item within the acronym or abbr tag, and mousing over will reveal the full description.

There seem to be different schools of thought as to if you need to use these tags on every single acronym, even if it’s used multiple times. On the one hand, only using the tag in the first instance may pose a problem if someone skips around the content and misses that initial explanation.

On the other hand, using the tag ten times for the same acronym seems a bit excessive too, especially if it’s a long one, like CAPTCHA.

Not sure where I stand on the issue, I tend to just use the acronym tag in all cases, even multiple times with the same acronym. Whatever you do, just make sure that when you need to use acronyms, there’s an explanation of what they stand for.

If the acronym is one your company made up for some sort of internal process, and basically nobody in the outside world would understand it without a frame of reference (like the initials for a department), just spell it out in your web site content. If they work for you or do business with you, they’ll learn the acronyms when it makes sense.

As for using corporate jargon and catchphrases in your content on an outward-facing web site? I say skip it. People, whether they are disabled or not, are coming to your site to either make purchases or learn more about you. Just give them concise, impactful, clear content.

Be direct.  Save the cute expressions, sports metaphors, or whatever else for your meetings…or be merciful, and stop them altogether.

Tags: acronyms, corporate jargon, corporatespeak, screen readers

Just this afternoon, Michael Seidel and I did a brief presentation to a group of web designers, outlining a process to better fuse user experience with design and development. The intent of this process is to raise awareness in the value of user experience every step of the way, from the initial wireframing through web site/page creation, and continually even after it is launched.

One key point we made – user experience isn’t one step in the process, to be executed once and checked off. It’s pervasive.

Web accessibility goes hand in hand with user experience. After all, what is accessibility but building experiences that are usable for everybody?

That also means that web accessibility isn’t a checkbox on your to-do list. It isn’t a singular task that you “do” and move on. It’s constant.

It’s something you think about when:

• you are card-sorting the key elements of a web site.
• you build wireframes of the information you’re presenting.
• you consider color contrasts, typography and layout while designing the page.
• you enter every single line of CSS, HTML, JavaScript, Flash, etcetera
• you ask users — disabled and non-disabled — to test out your new web experience and share what works and what doesn’t.

User experience and accessibility aren’t individual tasks at one specific point in time. They are ways of thinking that carry through every aspect necessary to build a web site or page.

Don’t marginalize either by ignoring them or relegating them to one tiny line item in your project.

Tags: user experience, ux, web accessibility, web design

I’m quite happy with how this blog has evolved over the past year and a half.

But I’ve definitely learned that blogging is a challenge on many levels. Making the commitment to post often — but with quality — is harder than you’d think.

As I look back at the first year and a half of this site, I can see my voice has changed…and I think for the better.

When I first started, I felt this need to be more formal and “professional”. I tried to be conversational and casual, but I don’t think I was entirely successful. I also tried to keep a neutral ground of everything, like an impartial reporter just reporting the news (okay, maybe that’s a bad example these days).

Along those lines, I tended to recap news items and headlines too often. I’ve really tried to steer away from doing that, and I think I’ve been successful. I find it infinitely more valuable to express my own opinions, take stands, or share insights I’ve gleaned while reading up on web accessibility.

What’s really driven it home for me is that some of the posts I thought were just random ramblings that would fall flat, like the first “True Tales of Accessibility Ignorance“, resonated the most with people. I got the most retweets on Twitter, and actual comments from readers! And, at least by my own modest standards, my site traffic spiked.

Now, whether a topic is specifically about web accessibility or not, I’m comfortable and confident just expressing opinions – about my journey as a blogger, about my decade plus of experience in web design, about my foray into user experience, about my interest in video games, on and on…

In short, I’ve learned that effective blogging is being yourself. Take a stance on something. Share something compelling. Respond to comments and further the conversation. Say interesting things.

Tags: blogging, web content

I was recently reading a couple articles about some potential accessibility issues within the video game Bioshock 2. The articles point out color contrast issues with an in-game puzzle, that could leave color blind users out in the cold.

Though I knew I’d regret it, I checked out some of the comments after the posts.

Some random snippets:

what really grinds my gears is how all of a sudden the whole world needs to help people to do stuff they are inherently challenged to do. whats next? an adapter to use a wheelchair on the balance board?

from “What BioShock 2’s Hacking Looks Like if You’re Colour Blind“

It amazes me how many people with a defect think that the rest of the world should cater to them.

from “What BioShock 2’s Hacking Looks Like if You’re Colour Blind“

isn’t this like a one armed man moaning about not being able to play golf?

from “What Colorblind Hackers See In BioShock 2“

This is more of a problem for people that are blind. I mean, come on, how are they supposed to play this? They should be catering to blind gamers as well. And what about those born without opposable thumbs. It’s not fair that my manatee can’t play play this game either.

from “Bioshock 2’s No Friend of the Colorblind“

I realize that Internet forums and comment threads have and forever will be peppered (or dominated in some cases) by people who live to get a rise out of people. Some are just plain ignorant; others are just trying to rankle by saying outlandish things. I’ve been around the web world long enough to have seen countless examples of both.

Still, there’s still a lot of voices out who just don’t get it or care. Their worlds aren’t “inconvenienced” by blindness, or deafness, or motor skill impairment.

Is it feasible to make every web site or every video game 100% the same experience for the disabled and non-disabled? Of course not. Is it asking too much to add avenues to them that make the experience better? In a lot of cases, of course not.

From adding captions to providing color blind-friendly color contrasting settings to keyboard equivalents, there are many ways to improve the accessibility of video games, without expecting drastic concessions from the developers.

For web sites, we’ve discussed many times how simple changes can go a long way. Effective alt tags, proper tabbing navigation…the list goes on.

It may amaze the one poster that “people with a defect think that the rest of the world should cater to them,” but I’d like to see if he or she would maintain such a cavalier attitude if a disability struck.

Tags: bioshock 2, color blindness, color contrast, Video Games