In my last post, I began sharing many thoughts about my visit to IndependenceFirst on Monday, to attend “Multiple Facets of Accessible Design.” It was an excellent presentation facilitated by MilwauCHI.

I rambled so excitedly in my coverage of Shawn Henry’s presentation that I needed to split things up into multiple blog posts to do them justice.

The second presenter was Scott Mayer from American Family Insurance, a usability services specialist who became blind at the age of 24.

He led off with some interesting statistics about disabled people in the United States:

Scott then demonstrated how he uses the Internet via his JAWS screen reader. I’ve got to tell you, that was one of the most revealing experiences I’ve had since focusing on accessibility.

I’ve been tackling the subject in my own incremental way, and while I’ve watched a video here and there demonstrating screen readers, there was something completely different about seeing one in action.

Scott showed examples of good and bad accessibility using his screen reader. On one site, he showed how he was unable to pay a bill on a banking site because the actionable button for signing on was invisible to the screen reader.

Another interesting point – Scott talked about how many sites, particularly in the financial sector, tend to go through redesigns often. Some financial sites do it almost quarterly. While constant evolution and enhancement may seem like an all-around great idea, somebody like Scott has to completely re-learn how to get around that site each time they retool it.

Scott explained how automated accessibility testing is not enough. There is no replacement for usability testing with disabled users.

People tend to treat disabled consumers like Scott differently, thinking them to be less educated or poorer. He shared an experience in which he and his wife took their car in for repairs, and how the attendants didn’t even consider for a moment that a blind user may know something about car repairs. They barely acknowledged him.

Physical stores tend to be useless to somebody like Scott. He frequently utilizes the Internet to buy things and have them shipped to his home.

Just because somebody is blind, or deaf, or has some sort of disability, don’t assume they are less intelligent or some poor, destitute person. It may be easy for some businesses to dismiss what they assume is an insignificant minority of potential visitors to their web site, but there is an awful lot of ignorance steeped in that attitude.

And I haven’t even gotten to my first tour of IndependenceFirst! We’ll save that for next week’s posts!

Tags: assistive technology, IndependenceFIRST, jaws, milwauCHI, milwaukee, Scott Mayer, visually impaired

I’m excited to mention that there will be an accessibility presentation right here in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area this month.

On January 18th, “Multiple Facets of Accessible Design” will take place at IndependenceFirst. Shawn Henry from the W3C and Scott Mayer from the American Family Usability Department will be the guest speakers.

Those of you who follow this blog may recall the three-part interview I conducted with Carol Voss from IndependenceFirst last July. I really enjoyed that experience and am very much looking forward to making my first visit to their facilities. Part of the evening’s events includes a tour of IndependenceFirst.

The event is being held by MilwauCHI, the Milwaukee-based chapter of the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction.

For more information, visit the MilwauCHI web site.

Related Links:

Tags: association for computing machinery special interest group, computer-human interaction, IndependenceFIRST, milwauCHI, milwaukee, Scott Mayer, shawn henry, usability, W3C

User experience research & design consultants Webcredible released their 2009 Ecommerce Accessibility Report. In studies conducted in January, they analyzed the online experiences of 19 top UK-based high street (U.S. readers, think the generic term “main street”) retailers, using as criteria 20 best practices.

Overall, from their previous report in October 2007, the average score went up from 57% to 62%. In general, the sites reviewed have made improvements, though there is still room for improvement. Most rated in the average/good range.

You need only submit your email address to receive a free copy of the PDF.

Tags: 2009 ecommerce accessibility report, Accessorize, Argos, B&Q, Body Shop, Boots, Currys, Debenhams, Early Learning Centre, Game, H.Samuel, Hamleys, HMV, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, Mothercare, Next, Topshop, UK, Waterstones, webcredible, WHSmith

WebAIM recently posted results to a survey of screen reader users, conducted from December 2008 – January 2009. In Survey of Preferences of Screen Readers Users, they share very interesting results regarding the usage of screen reader technology in web navigating.

Some of the initial findings perhaps aren’t surprising. Of the 1121 participants, the vast majority (nearly 90%) use screen reader technology all of the time and because of a disability. 96% of them cited visual impairment, in most cases outright blindness.

The breakdown of screen reader usage is insightful:

• JAWS – 74%
• Windows Eyes – 23%
• NVDA – 8%
• VoiceOver – 6%

(WebAIM points out that percentages often don’t add up to 100% due to rounding, and in this case also because of the possibility of usage of multiple products)

Most of the participants utilize desktop PCs (78%), with just over half use screen readers on a laptop. Those using mobile technology with screen readers made up a much smaller 12%.

Lastly (for this post), web browser usage breaks down as follows:

• Internet Explorer 7 – 68%
• Firefox – 39%
• Internet Explorer 6 – 33%
• Safari – 6%
• Internet Explorer 8 – 2%

Amongst the nearly 7% of participants who used screen readers though were not disabled (some for evaluation purposes), Firefox usage was twice as prevalent. It was also noted that the question was not worded “primary” browser, just browser usage, and that IE8 and Safari were, essentially, write-in votes.

While none of this is exact science, the findings are all-around very interesting and offer a glimpse into the methods and practices of screen reader users.

I’ll close for now, having focused on the software and hardware findings. There are a slew of results covering browsing tendencies, from home page navigation to access keys to Flash and imagery frustrations/ease of use.

All in all, these results are well worth combing through and considering when evaluating accessibility, particularly as it relates to the visually impaired.

Tags: blindness, jaws, NVDA, screen readers, survey, visually impaired, VoiceOver, WebAIM, Windows Eyes

Even the most well-intentioned business or web site owner, when faced with the prospect of having to make their site more accessible to people with disabilities, may find themselves asking, “Do I really have to go through all of this for such a small percentage of visitors? How many disabled people actually will come to my web site?”

The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2007 Annual Disability Status Report¹ provides statistics based on several criteria, from age brackets to income and employment.

Amongst U.S. population from the “working-age” demographic of 21 to 64:

Disability Type – Percent
Any Disability – 12.8%
Sensory – 2.9%
Physical – 7.9%
Mental – 4.7%

If you look at straight-up numbers from age 5 and up (with the caveat, of course, that the youngest and oldest ends of those spectrums have a lower percentage of actual web users):

Any Disability – 14.9%
Sensory – 4.2%
Physical – 9.4%
Mental – 5.8%

Percentages are one thing. 2.9-4.2% of the U.S. population having hearing or vision disabilities isn’t a number that may wow you. However, when you equate that to real numbers — 5,033,000 to 11,696,000 — it suddenly doesn’t seem so insignificant.

Obviously, those numbers apply broadly to people with disabilities, not people with disabilities who specifically surf the web.

Pew Internet’s The Ever-Shifting Internet Population (link to a PowerPoint document) cites statistics from 2003 that shed some light on disabled web users:

Some highlights:

• 38% of Americans with disabilities surf the web
• Almost 20% of them say that their disability makes web browsing challenging
• Nearly 30% of disabled Americans live in households netting less than $20,000 a year, which makes challenging — if not impossible — the procurement of assistive technologies, which are often expensive

Again, while 38% of what is already a small percentage of American society doesn’t seem like a staggering number, but they are people in cyberspace trying to make the most of their experience, be it research, entertainment, or even shopping.

I’ve heard similar arguments in my life about the need to go out of one’s way to make websites 100% aesthetically-clean and functional in non-IE browsers like Firefox and Safari. That sentiment seems more and more antiquated and silly now, but it’s of a similar vein as the accessibility question.

Are you willing to simply say “Too bad” to 5% of potential visitors/customers? 10%? More?

If web developers or designers engrain in their coding acumen the basic fundamentals of web accessibility, such as proper title and alt tags in all images or not forgetting to list out your doc type or assign a language to your html tag, it’s not moving mountains or spending gobs of money to make your site easier for assistive technologies and disabilities browsers to get around.

It’s not only becoming more and more of a legal issue, it’s also an issue of ethics. It’s maybe hokey and Wilford Brimley-esque to say “It’s the right thing to do,” but really it is. Are you really willing to say that what you’re trying to sell or convey on the Internet isn’t important or relevant to would-be disabled visitors?

You can’t make a site 100% accessible to everybody — it’s just not realistic and somewhere you have to draw a line. But following basic standards will not only make your sites easier for blind, deaf, and physically-limited surfers to get around, but they’ll tend to be more standards-compliant and easier to navigate for -everybody-.

That’s an all-around win.

Footnote
¹ Houtenville, Andrew J. 2005. “Disability Statistics in the United States.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics, www.disabilitystatistics.org. Posted May 15, 2003. Accessed March 28, 2005.

Tags: 2007 Annual Disability Status Report, accessibility, disability, pew internet, statistics