Comments on: Target v NFB Round-up http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/19/target-v-nfb-round-up/ Raising the awareness of Web Site Accessibility and Marketing. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:24:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Steve Buell http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/19/target-v-nfb-round-up/#comment-13595 Steve Buell Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:49:48 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/19/target-v-nfb-round-up/#comment-13595 As an Adaptive Computer Technology service provider, I can tell you that not all technology users are experts in the technology they use. Just like all internet users are experts in internet technologies. I have worked with JAWS users who have 10 years experience, which would normally classify them as "expert", who have difficulty with what would be considered mundane tasks. I have worked with others that could manipulate a well designed interface faster than a sighted used. They could even navigate all but the most agregiously inaccessible sites to some degree. They were, of course using the latest, greatest adaptive technology and had a remarkable understanding of what they were up against. The "normal user" of adaptive technology would have a significantly different experience. They are not, usually using JAWS 7.0x. How about HPR 3.0.4, Supernova, or HAL? To imply that "Oh, this problem is ameliorated by setting this option in your configuration...", is a complete dodge of the practical issue. A simple conformance with generally accepted web design standards will make your application at least usable with many adaptive computer technologies. As an Adaptive Computer Technology service provider, I can tell you that not all technology users are experts in the technology they use. Just like all internet users are experts in internet technologies.
I have worked with JAWS users who have 10 years experience, which would normally classify them as “expert”, who have difficulty with what would be considered mundane tasks.
I have worked with others that could manipulate a well designed interface faster than a sighted used.
They could even navigate all but the most agregiously inaccessible sites to some degree.
They were, of course using the latest, greatest adaptive technology and had a remarkable understanding of what they were up against.
The “normal user” of adaptive technology would have a significantly different experience.
They are not, usually using JAWS 7.0x.
How about HPR 3.0.4, Supernova, or HAL?
To imply that “Oh, this problem is ameliorated by setting this option in your configuration…”, is a complete dodge of the practical issue.
A simple conformance with generally accepted web design standards will make your application at least usable with many adaptive computer technologies.

]]> By: Joe Dolson http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/19/target-v-nfb-round-up/#comment-13581 Joe Dolson Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:52:48 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/19/target-v-nfb-round-up/#comment-13581 There's some question, in addition, as to how the website itself should be judged: since it's a dynamic resource, and has been changed since the initiation of the lawsuit, (notably some mouse-only image inputs), should these JAWS users be required to negotiate the site as it existed at the time of the lawsuit? Do changes made in response to the suit actually negate part of the suit? There's certainly a good chance that Target will win, but at least issues of web accessibility have made the news in a fairly prominent way. There’s some question, in addition, as to how the website itself should be judged: since it’s a dynamic resource, and has been changed since the initiation of the lawsuit, (notably some mouse-only image inputs), should these JAWS users be required to negotiate the site as it existed at the time of the lawsuit? Do changes made in response to the suit actually negate part of the suit?

There’s certainly a good chance that Target will win, but at least issues of web accessibility have made the news in a fairly prominent way.

]]>