The Harry Potter series has been hailed as the revival of reading among young children, teens and adults alike, which I think is a great thing. The stories are engaging, well-written, and to see children excited about reading is a very powerful thing. However, there is a lot of drama underlying the Harry Potter series, ebooks and accessibility, that I think this may end up being one of the longest posts I’ve made. So, this post is not really about any comments of mine about the Harry Potter series, only the concerns that surround e-publishing, web site design and the fighting against the digital age that has arisen as a result of the popularity of this international phenomenon.
The E-Book Controversy
The author of the Potter series, J.K. Rowling, and her literary agents, decided against releasing the novel on-line in an e-book format. They cited piracy and lack of interest among young readers in the digital e-book format. However, within 24 hours of the “Half-Blood Prince” release there was a full digital copy of the book online, for free, put together by fans that bought the book, scanned the pages with OCR software, proofread and released. The result of a coordinated effort among people that never met personally, but shared a common goal.
I think in a choice between some and none, the publishers might consider getting some. There is a demand, especially in this series. There are also a number of readers that cannot read the “typical� book. Multiple hindrances prevent people from reading the standard book format. Blindness and physical disabilities are only a few of the reasons. Therefore, how can those who need alternate versions of the book appreciate the release or the excitement surrounding it?
The hesitance of releasing the book is due to the lack of interest of children in reading e-books. The lawyers for the literary agency compared the plight of the great literary works “Princess Diaries� and “Samurai Girls� to average authors, such as Michael Crichton. Whereas Crichton’s books are successfully marketed to adults as e-books, the “Samari Girls� did not fare nearly as well, even when offered for free. Just my guess, but you think the quality of work may enter into the equation at some point? Somehow, it doesn’t surprise me that the demand is not the same for “Samurai Girls� as for “The Andromeda Strain.� Maybe offering something of quality, that appeals to a broad audience, may sell an e-book. But the market would not have created its own e-book, available for free, if the demand were not there, would it? Otherwise, to you publishers and literary agents, zero percent of zero equals zero. (0% x 0 = 0) Get it?
The Accessible Website
The other side to the Harry Potter buzz is the newly “accessabilized� J.K. Rowling web site. The site is the same, but a team of programmers from Lightmaker Group, Royal National Institute of the Blind and Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People gave it an accessibility overhaul. Apparently, this is being hyped as to “what can happen when high end designers partner with accessibility experts.�
What is overlooked is that this is not a new web site; instead, it is just now accessible. What was previously a Flash-based experience for users is now an Accessible Flash-based web site. I don’t think that I can do better than Jeffrey Zeldman’s prudent observation; “On the one hand, it demonstrates how accessible a Flash-based site can be. On the other, it shows how many expensive experts it may take to make a deep Flash site accessible.â€?
Which is the case in this point, cost. That is the reason so many companies would love to overlook accessibility. But the reasoning of cost neglects the actual issue. The cost factor is minimal, that argument is a red herring, it distracts from the actual problem. It is web sites and news like this that makes people believe it is an expensive venture. If you want to see the reaction to Macromedia patting themselves on the back, check out the comments section in their blog. Which requires a captcha to leave a comment . . . (enough said about that)
If it were so critical and important, why wasn’t it implemented when the site went live years ago? It would have been cheaper. However, the current accessible version is not without hindrances. Just because something is accessible does not mean it performs well in usability. The accessibility features are still difficult to find, and are not able to be used in programs other than JAWS and Window Eyes. Oh, and by the way, the accessibility features are only available in English.
Many feel that, though accessible, the usability is significantly lacking. The text-only version could have simply been enhanced to allow for greater accessibility and usability while still providing an “experience.� While this is being touted as a significant accessibility accomplishment for Macromedia and its Flash technology, to me it raises more questions.
Why not create a standards-based site that uses Flash elements? Wouldn’t the cost be less and not require the services of a horde of “experts,â€? which most sites cannot afford? Doesn’t accessible mean that the site can be used, understood and appreciated, regardless of user agent?
However, all of this does make one simple point. At the core of any marketing effort, designing for accessibility at the beginning of a project will prevent additional costs or additional losses in the future.
Some is better than none, but all is better than some.
I don’t know where Jeffrey got the idea that the development was expensive… see actual info here:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/07/how_many_access.cfm
I also don’t recall seeing anyone implement such progressive-disclosure audio cues in XHTML. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just means it’s an orthogonal argument.
(JAWS and WindowEyez implement an OS-standard screenreading API. That’s why most people who need such tools use them.)
And *yes*, you raise an important issue about the relation between localization and accessibility! These two concerns, along with usability and device-independence, are all part of the total User Experience a project offers. They’re not the same thing, but they each share a concern for the audience.
(And yeah, the CAPTCHA needs improvement, of course… earlier this month there was an unanticipated jump to a new server, and we’re still using defaults rather than set it up as we’d like.)
jd/mm
Comment by John Dowdell — July 22, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
Hi, John- Good to see you found my place.
I don’t think JZ indicated that the cost of making the Rowling’s site was expensive, just that the same panel of experts may not have given time to this project if it weren’t J.K. Rowling’s site. This creates the sense that the same level of support and guidance will be expensive for any other development group wishing to tackle a similar project. I hope that I’m not putting works in Jeffrey’s mouth about that, but I see his point and the possible inference from “reading between the lines” in the announcements surrounding this project.
Thanks for the notice. Glad to hear from you!
Comment by Matt Bailey — July 22, 2005 @ 10:15 pm
Howdy,
As one of the ‘experts’ on the project, I have to speak up here. All credit on this project belongs to Lightmaker. They did all of the heavy lifting themselves. As I wrote in my response, the expense of the involvement from myself and the disability groups was pretty minimal. As I point up in my response, I would argue that any project with this high of a profile, should seek some quick advice before they get started and feedback from people with disabilities. This is not a Flash issue. This is just as true of HTML.
As for focusing on the text only version, I worry about this. If the only accessible version of a rich media site is text only, that is all we will ever see. Interactivity and video add a lot to this site. Without it, the experience is fundamentally different. I persoannly do not believe people with disabilities should be relagated to text only sites alone, with no attempt at accessible rich media ever made.
Cheers,
Bob
Comment by Bob Regan — July 26, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
Bob,
Thanks for clearing things up. I think a lot of the misunderstanding, at least from my perspective, is that all of the announcements made about the improved site seemed as though there were a crowd of people looking to have credit for this achievement. Perceptively, it looked like it took an army to do this – and I can see how that thinking arose.
I also agree that Rich Media can be used to create better sites, and those with disabilities should not always be relegated to text-only sites. However I do have a couple of questions concerning these agreed upon points.
The first is one of the best applications for Flash that I have seen, and that is what my daughter is able to do on sites like NickJr.com, Noggin.com and PBSKids.org. Those sites amaze me with the games, puzzles and learning tools that are available. The amazing thing is that she is four, and rarely asks for help. She intuitively figures out site navigation, games and activities on her own. I watch her and wonder how this can also be done to allow accessibility for all children, and at what point do we simply have to admit that there are limitations?
The second has to do with device limitations. I realize that the Rowling site is mostly entertainment, and the license to be creative is much more liberal. For a news or consumer site, however, people may not be as patient with the current limitations on Flash accessibility. The other side of accessibility is the Web Standards movement, which has at the core interoperability. I found right away that it is very difficult to view Flash, even accessible flash, on handheld devices, such as PDA’s, web enabled phones, and other mobile devices. Granted, this is in great demand yet, but it is coming. What is Macromedia planning to make Flash accessible to mobile devices?
Thanks for commenting, Bob. I appreciate your time in visiting my site.
Comment by Matt Bailey — July 28, 2005 @ 9:43 am