Web Site Accessibility Blog

Courtesy of Accessify.com,

The W3C has created a formal document on the inaccessibility of CAPTCHA (Turing Test) as a security device on sites as a means of keeping automated bots from registering as users. The main criticism of CAPTCHA has been the inability of blind, dyslexic or other vision-impaired users to use pass the test of identifying characters in a low-contrast or difficult-to-read bitmap.

Search engines and blogs are primary culprits in this area, as many people would like to use services offered by search engines, such as instant messaging, and blogs use the CAPTCHA to prevent automated comments.

Who Uses the CAPTCHA?
AOL - offered an audio alternative.
Google - all of their services are tied into the captcha.
Yahoo - invisible attempt at a work-around.
Verio - no domain registration for you!
MSN - blind music fans couldn’t vote at MSN Entertainment.

CAPTCHA’s Don’t Work!
Despite all of this, the W3C article shows that CAPTCHA only provides a false sense of security, as 88% to 100% of optical character recognition software testing was able to overcome the captcha on PHP and ASP-based systems. Many sites have published defeats of the captcha and outline specific ways to work-around this method.

Despite the high failure rate and the ability of automated spambots to defeat the captcha, it still seems to be the favored method of security. All the while keeping actual users, who are intended to use the applications, out of the site.

CAPTCHA Options
The document goes on to explain alternative methods;

1. Logic Puzzles - which software can still defeat
2. Audio Captcha - testing shows audio to be harder to detect for users than for software
3. Limited Use Accounts - a band-aid
4. Spam Filtering - non-interactive solution that screens for “hot words” to disallow bots”
5. Heuristic Checks - again, non-interactive solution, but checks more information, such as IP address, pages visited, checking the user “footprint” against known bot behavior. Very cool ideas and technology in this category.
6. Microsoft Identity Systems - I don’t know about you, but something like a user ID card or security code just sounds to “Big Brother-ish” to me, especially if it is created and offered by Microsoft.

While a little dry in areas, this is a recommended read, especially if you are using a Captcha on your site or blog to keep bots out and people in. It could be working in the opposite effect of which it is intended.

Jacob Neilson’s latest Alertbox article, “Accessibility is Not Enough,” details his criticisms of marketing accessibility. Just because a program or a web page strictly adheres to a 508 “scorecard” or meets all of the accessibility guidelines does not imply that it will be understood or easy to use. Simply meeting accessibility criteria is not sufficient for building a successful web site or application.

Jacob mentions that accessibility does not “live within a vacuum.” Accessibility alone does not create instant success. Much the same as develop a standards-compliant website does not automatically create a usable, accessible, or well-designed website. The goal of any web site is to sell; be it products, a service, an idea, whatever. In building a site to persuade users, users must be able to understand the purpose of the site and use it easily. While accessibility makes the site open to users regardless of disability, it still needs to be understood and easy to use.

Overall, it is a very short, but succinct article in warning people to be wary of software or applications that are sold as accessible, yet do not take user behavior into account. Accessibility is best applied with usability. This is a theme that seems to be developing. Accessibility, Usability & Optimization – all are interrelated and interdependent in building a successful web site.

Andy Hagans published an excellent article recently, “High Accessibility Is Effective Search Engine Optimization.” I would highly recommend that anyone wanting to optimize their site read this article first to get a sense of how important search engine optimization can be for accessibility, and how important accessibility is to search engine optimization.

My take on this:
Is I’ll always say, search engine optimization (SEO) is more than just rankings. Those SEO’s that claim that as the goal need to grow and understand that simply gaining rankings does not create a successful web presence. True SEO understands that the user is the most important factor in the web site planning, and accessibility is one method of ensuring that you are taking care of all users, regardless of access level or device.

SEO & Accessibility: friend and foe?
The Priority 1 checkpoints are not only good optimization and necessary accessible elements - they are just pure good practice for any site. “Professional” SEO and accessibility are hand-in-hand partners in meeting the needs of users. Unfortunately, attempts at SEO can render a site unusable for most assistive devices, such as screen readers. SEO’s who rely on stuffing keywords into any available tag or attribute do more to alienate users than help them.

Phase 2 Checkpoints : Marketing
In building on Andy’s fine article, I would like to bring out a group of accessibility checkpoints in the Priority 2 section. These are even more than accessibility and SEO. These checkpoints surround the marketing and presentation of the site’s content. Realizing that users scan pages, both in reading visually or in using a screen reader, these elements are critical in allowing easy scanning of the site’s content:

2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast.

I can’t say enough about high contrast text on the web. I seem to be able to find at least one web site a week using blue text on a light blue background, or even worse, blue or yellow text on a black background. I am also noticing a lot more light grey text on white backgrounds, which maybe seems “artsy”, but gives users headaches. No one will read your content if you make it difficult for a user to focus on the content. The text on the site needs to be big enough and contrasting enough to allow for easy reading. Unless you want to hide your message, make it easy to read.

10.1 Do not cause POP-ups or other windows to appear.

‘Nuff said.

12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate.

Most of what I learned about web design, I learned from my past life of being a Journalism student. When I decided to make my first website back in 1996, I had no specific web design training, so I did what I knew, which was using cues from newspaper layouts and implementing that into my designs. Fortunately, newspapers make good use (well, most) of headlines subheadings, and paragraph headings in order to allow readers to scan an article quickly. These same elements allow a user to scan the page quickly in order to find relevant information, without having to read word-for-word.

13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link.

Don’t use “Click Here” and “More Info” in your links. I don’t want to rant about usable anchor text again.

13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites.

While metadata is not the SEO technique it once was, it still provides the search engines with semantic information to determine relevance, not rankings. The keywords can help the engines better classify your site’s content. The description can also help with building relevant data, but is also sometimes used for the snippet of information contained in the search engine results pages. A well-written description can result in a very positive marketing message in the snippet, which can help attract click-thru’s to your site.

13.3 Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents).

This technique is very helpful to both users and search engines. For users it provides the “index” to the site’s contents. Anyone can quickly get a layout of the pages in the site within a click and see if the information they need is available. This also gives search engine spiders the ability to quickly access the most internal links within the site.

13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner.

Accessibility requires consistent navigation for users that may have a cognitive disorder, but consistency of navigation is something that should be maintained at any level. Navigating a web site should never be a game for the user; it should be an intuitive process, as clear labels and consistent placement provide security for any user, regardless of access or device.

What have we learned?
More than just accessibility and search engine optimization, the accessibility checkpoints also provide a comprehensive outline for marketing a website. A consistent, easy to read layout of the content and navigation can help a site in building conversions, not just rankings. Ultimately the measure of any website is the number of conversions, be it sales, leads, ad clicks, etc. When site owners and managers start to realize this, the emphasis will be where it counts - on the bottom line and how to improve it.

Fortunately, the means of improving the conversion-ability of a web site is contained in the WCAG guidelines and can be expanded upon with basic usability principles and good advice. My goal is that designers and programmers or anyone with an interest in a web site would print out the WCAG guidelines and post them near their computer. They are not difficult to follow, and in most cases, it’s just common sense.

Well, not really a rant, but a well-defined list of problems with screen readers.
Each falls under the four categories of; Failing, Ignoring, Mispronouncing or Misunderstanding. There are some surprises in there that I didn’t think of, but I’m sure that regular screen reader users will shout with glee as someone understands their frustrations.

There has been a lot of call for screen reader technologies to improve and do a better job of interpreting websites. Currently, the feeling in the industry is that “ screen readers suck“, and again “screen readers suck 2“. Designers who are aware of the differences have to make allowances for screen readers not acting as a seperate user-agent rather than a screenreader acting like a browser and interpreting the information for the user.

AccessIT at the University of Washington comments on how screen readers react differently from each other, even though a site’s code is up to standards. A specific example is the “longdesc” attribute, which was recommended by the W3C in 1997, but not implemented until Jaws 4.01 release in 2002.

Access IT also links to a research article by CAMO pour personnes handicapées, on “How Assistive Software Supports Web Accessibility.”

I downloaded IBM’s (AlphaWorks) aDesigner a few weeks ago as a way of testing access to a few of the company’s web sites. Building an accessibility initiative into an eight-year old web design/development company is an undertaking. Like going to the gym after a couple years away, it causes some soreness as you go back to working out those long-forgotten mucles, but you know that it’s good for you.

Within days of giving aDesigner a test drive, I started with a new client who was going to be developing a new web site. In discussing the design, he informed me that he was severely colorblind, so colors really won’t matter to him. Needless to say, I was surprised, I never would have guessed. However, I now realized why his old site was so utilitarian.

I got the first design from the artist, and I gave aDesigner its first real-world test. I loaded up the jpg image of the homepage, set the simulator to a specific color-blindness setting (to simulate this specific person’s view) and I was amazed at the difference. Seeing a side-by side comparison, we were able to quickly identify the elements of the design that did not have enough contrast and where visual color cues would not work.

Because of this, we revised the design to increase the accessibility before presenting the site to the owner. I also asked the artist to install the program, as they would also be able to see for themselves what the site owner would see. This is such an effective tool, as those with good vision can now see what others see, rather than just hearing about it or getting instructions by email. We are now running all new designs through aDesigner, and our currently testing our existing sites.

aDesigner also has settings for screen reader simulation, so that you can measure the load time before a screen reader will start reading and the flow of information. At an agreeable price point $99 USD, this should be a requirement for any designer.

The upcoming revision of the Web Accessibility Guidelines is creating some havoc in the standards community. The rift in the argument is that standards proponents want to include HTML validation as a Level 2 Accessibility requirement. The “other half” of the standards crowd is shouting back that validated code is not and should not be a requirement for an accessible website.

I see the logic in this disagreement. Unvalidated code can be just as accessible as validated code. Requiring valid code for accessibility is not a logical step; it’s a step in a different direction. While valid code is a strong recommendation and can help accessibility, it should not be required.

Matt May at bestkungfu Weblog goes into detail with his argument for keeping standards and accessibility separate. Good job, Matt, and well done.

Yet another example of how SEO (Search Engine Optimization) can screw up a site at Wait till I Come! .

I guess this has become my crusade - a defense of SEO and an offensive on crappy SEO. How to do both at the same time? That’s the question. There is no central standards organization - the closest thing to some kind of standard is the search engines themselves. Google is the only engine that provides a full list of recommendations and warnings against specific SEO tactics.

I was actually in a conversation about his last night - there is no actual definition of what an SEO does. Anyone who messes around with a site’s title attributes and stuffs a few keywords into alt attributes carries the same “SEO” title as one who works with the site as a whole, considering usability, accessibility and overall site performance.

In other words - anyone can be an SEO. The only way I have found to separate the different “types” of SEO is to find that person’s view of the goal of a campaign. Sadly, many SEO’s consider better rankings the ultimate measurement of a successful site marketing campaign - welcome to the late 90’s of SEO.

My view of SEO is a holistic approach. SEO has its place along with design, usability, accessibility, copywriting, architecture and all aspects of the user experience. In this view, the ultimate measure of a campaign is the bottom line results: Money. If the sales and leads don’t improve, then the campaign isn’t working. All the rankings in the world don’t mean anything if the site can’t convert. SEO depends on a well-built and usable site. Many SEO’s understand this total site concept, but sadly, most don’t.

SEO is not the killer app. SEO is part of a total site marketing strategy. Bad SEO turns people away, just like a bad design, poor accessibility and terrible copywriting. The term ethical only confuses the issue. “Ethical” has nothing to do with it. The main issues are improving the site to make it better for the user - hidden text, keyword stuffing, and overloading links are all “Amateur SEO” from the 90’s that were bad ideas then and still bad ideas now. I call it Amateur SEO, because their methods haven’t grown up enough to understand how SEO is supposed to work.

The author summarizes his experience with these thoughts:

* Make the site independent of file names
* Make sure your design can fit a lot of links
* Be sure to keep everything in the template flexible – and don’t think for a moment that you can separate content and markup – you will be asked to add a lot of title attributes.

Great - what an indictment of the SEO industry. Each one of those things will not do much of anything for your rankings. Not only are they not effective - they make your site look like it was recycled from the trash bin.
File names can help a site - but it’s one of those extremely small factors. If it’s not broke - don’t fix it is my advice on that. Loading pages with links and stuffing title attributes is just bad.

I found this rant courtesy of 456 Berea Street and the term “so-called Ethical SEO” is being thrown around. In my opinion - it’s completely justified. The comments on both blogs are very eye opening to anyone in the SEO industry.

A year ago I had the privilege of speaking at Search Engine Strategies, where I was on a panel discussion of Web Standards and SEO with Eric Meyer and Shari Thurow. See “Worthless Shady Criminals: A defense of SEO“. As part of my presentation, I brought up a site that relied on stuffing keywords into every available attribute (title, alt, link title, CSS Layers, etc.) I turned off the display and started JAWS and let an audience of a few hundred SEO’s listen to what a screen reader will do when faced with this “crap.” The audience, 99% of which I am sure had never given accessibility a thought, was amazed when they were forced to site there and listen to a keyword stuffed page. I think it opened some eyes to this problem of Amateur SEO.

Basically – I feel the pain and I hear what you are saying when you complain about “so-called-Ethical SEO’s�. I feel the same when I run into these Amateur SEO’s and have to fix these amateur methods and sometimes, try to get their work removed and get the client’s web site back into Google, as it was kicked out for using many of these methods.

If you are a site owner here are a few ideas:
-Before you work with any SEO, get an idea of their definition of success. (Rankings only? Or increased conversions?)
-Do they understand how usability, design, architecture and page layout influence conversions?
-For the safest route - measure their proposed methods against the Google SEO guidelines.
-Talk to their clients – ask pertinent questions.
-Get actual reports that they have provided clients.

By no means is this list exhaustive – that’s a project for another day . . .

I think every organization and cause has a “Day” at this point. A few weeks ago, there was a “Talk Like a Pirate Day” which caused some stir around the office.

Well, finally a day that I can see - however shortsighted for calling it a “Day.” Does this mean we should only discuss usability in public on this day? I can’t stand making these “Days” for awareness - it’s like a gesture without really doing anything out of the ordinary. The common saying that “it’s the thought that counts” comes to mind. The thought only counts when there is action attached - just ask my wife about all of the times I’ve thought about getting flowers for her and the times I actually did. The thought does NOT count to her.

Anyhow - Today, November 3rd, is World Usability Day. Live it up!

Do me a favor though, don’t limit your thoughts about usability to this day - maybe use this day to read a few usability articles and see what you can implement in small steps and grow from there . . .

Here are some recommended Usability articles:
Expanding on Usability - An Interview with Kim Krause Berg
Communicating error messages accessibly
Toward User-Centered, Scenario-Based Planning and Evaluation Tools
IBM - News articles on ease of use, usability and innovations.

and, of course, the Bible of Usability Books:
Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug

The Virginia Murray Sowell Center for Research and Education in Visual Impairment at the College of Education held its 7th Annual Distinguished Lecture Series at Texas Tech Saturday in conjunction with an assistive technology fair to show professionals and the public what tools the disabled can use to facilitate technological interaction.

HumanWare, a New Zealand based company, exhibited the BrailleNote and the BrailleNote PK. Both are Braille-displaying PDA’s. Users can also play music (in stereo), read books, type papers, use the Internet or sync up to a personal computer to download e-mails or other files. The BrailleNote PK is also Bluetooth enabled and has independent synthesized speech ability.
The price is typical of an emerging technology product, listed at $4,995 on the HumanWare website. Despite the price, it is good to see that these types of devices are being made and marketed to solve specific problems and allows mobile freedom.

HumanWare also has a full line of remarkable display devices for low-vision users. Both desktop display and digital mobile magnification devices are sleek, attractively designed products. The HumanWare site also does an excellent job of answering questions, helping users determine the right product for their needs and providing product information. The site is very logically put together and provides an excellent user experience.