Accessibility and Usability Report offered by Jacob Nielson
Nielson Group offers research data as a gift for the New Year.
Jacob Nielson, whom I have long admired for his excellent research into web usability, is offering a fantastic PDF report for free on his website. I am not sure if this is a limited time offer, so go download it NOW.
The report addresses factors that are usually overlooked when companies create accessible websites – usability. Having first-hand experience with testing accessible yet unusable designs and programming, this document is a must read. Simply creating a website that is accessible does not make a website easy to use. In some cases it can make it more difficult. Often overlooked, usability is a prime component of accessibility. While most people focus on the physical aspects of accessibility, there are also the cognitive aspects where people need the site to be simple, consistent, and understandable.
Bottom line: Being technically accurate in accessibility is great for machines, but not always good for users.
Beyond ALT Text: Making the Web Easy to Use for Users With Disabilities
75 Best Practices for Design of Websites and Intranets, Based on Usability Studies with People Who Use Assistive Technology
Leading Technology Companies form Accessibility Alliance
The Accessibility Interoperability Alliance, AIA (http://www.accessinteropalliance.org) has been formed from some of the World's biggest technology companies: Adobe, BayFirst Solutions, HP, Microsoft, and Novell. Included in the founding of this alliance are a number of specialist assistive technology companies: Claro Software, Dolphin Computer Access, GW Micro, HiSoftware, Mandentec, TextHelp Systems and Qualilife.
The new alliance plans to work together to increase interoperability between new and existing technologies, design new solutions, increase accessibility innovation, and improve developer guidelines. The initial project in this alliance is to create a standard for keyboard shortcuts so that users will have consistent behavior of AT products in any web browser.
This alliance is a key step to building a collaborative base of technologies and guidelines for development. Just this step can help increase the consistency for all users in their web and software experience. Additional development and bringing in of new companies and technologies will only help the assistive technology user, and also create a better experience as a whole.
Accessibility Testing Labs
I had the privilege of attending accessibility testing for an enterprise-level software application and found some interesting issues that are not typical to many projects. Actual user testing is strange like that – dealing with humans brings out all of the random factors.
First Issue: User Interaction with JAWS
One of the testers was a diabetic. She was blind and used Jaws, she also suffered from carpel-tunnel-like symptoms, called trigger finger. The tendons in her hands were shortening and becoming increasingly inflexible, which happens to many diabetics. Her hands were scarred from multiple surgeries on those tendons. The issue I observed was that some of the keystrokes combinations were very difficult for her to perform. Certain hand movements were difficult, slightly painful, but it was a surprise to find an unintended consequence to key combinations.
This became more of a JAWS issue for her navigation. She relied on simple keystroke commands, but the application required her to use some complex commands, which were difficult. This became a case of evaluating the controls and how it could be made easier for accommodation.
Second Issue: JAWS familiarity
Most accessibility issues could be overcome by improving the level of JAWS familiarity. Many JAWS users have a basic level of JAWS interaction, enough to get them where they want to go. However, this application will require specific JAWS training for internal employees. There are many functions in the application that are much easier to manage with a high level of JAWS expertise. We found that most JAWS users have the necessary understanding for navigating documents and the web, but they like learning new methods of improving their experience.
The advanced JAWS users were more able to cope with troubleshooting, navigating new and unfamiliar applications, pages, and accomplishing the specific testing goals. The added familiarity supplemented their toolset of resources in dealing with unfamiliar web pages. The accessibility of any system improves with the level of knowledge of the JAWS user.
Third issue: Usability v Accessibility
The developers of this software application tested many methods of improving accessibility. Each option was tested and evaluated. However, in the actual user testing the JAWS users expected certain behaviors, such as error handling, which were typical of using the web in combination with Internet Explorer and JAWS. When those specific events were improved in the application, the users were not pleased with the different behavior. Even though the application was more accessible, the users did not expect the more accessible behavior. They were used to overcoming the obstacles of poor accessibility and expected that behavior. Because they expected something different, they were not prepared for the more accessible method, and some actually preferred the less-accessible behaviors.
This is one case where expectancy, a key component of usability, affected the judgment of users in using a new system. The developers now had a dilemma of keeping the more accessible code, which improved many functions, or to change the code back to the typical less-accessible counterpart, simply because users were used to the issues that they typically cope with.
Fourth Issue: Vendor Claims
Here is where I can rant for days. Software applications that claim to be “accessible†but really aren’t. And usually, there isn’t even a good case that could be made for the “accessible†claim. Because a screen reader can toss out a few works? How can you describe your product as accessible when you don’t even use proper markup of page elements, frames, and critical navigation items?
As an example, this software produces reports that are navigated across multiple frames. The frameset lacks any <noframe> descriptions, so the user only has the title of each frame, which is barely descriptive. The main navigation is a tree structure that has no labels or descriptions, and the only method to expand the tree navigation is mouse-dependant. The navigation labels in the actual report lacked any sort of descriptive text. “Void†was the label for the print function. Many other labels were non-existed, misleading or simply absent.
This is accessible? How can you possible claim to be an accessible product when your application does not even take the simplest steps for accessible mark-up?
This last issue was the one that made me the angriest. The vendor of this application is seemingly unimpressed with the customer’s repeated requests for an actual accessible product. They simply seem to shrug their shoulders and claim that it is “accessible†when it is clearly unacceptable. It makes me wonder how this claim can be made and if there are any laws being broken. I am also sure that many vendors make the claim of being accessible without even understanding what accessible means, much less having the user testing to back it up.
What I learned
Even the best programming cannot account for human accessibility and usability testing. testing is critical to developing any site or application, as there will be many factors that were simply not considered, but will increase the effectiveness of the end product. My favorite part of the testing was the interaction and conversations with each of the testers. I enjoyed getting to know them, their stories, and their opinions about website accessibility. I feel as though I learned more from these amazing people than any book could have contained.
The Impact of Search on Accessibility, part 2
This is part 2 of my series on Accessible Search. In part one, I posted the full text of the interview with Google's Dr. T.V. Raman. Using that interview and interviews with end users, I wrote this article, which was posted in short form at Search Engine Watch.
Interestingly, most low-vision or AT users prefer Google or Ask as their primary search engine. Overwhelmingly, it is because of the interface. Both Google and Ask feature a stripped down interface rather than a portal-style interface, such as Yahoo! and MSN. Portal interfaces do not score well with low vision, blind, or AT users because of the "noise" it creates in the experience.
Here is the full article:
The Divergence of Accessible Search
Earlier this summer, Google released an Accessible Search Beta through its labs projects. The Accessible Search was the personal project of Dr. T.V. Raman, who came to Google about a year prior. The move by Google to release the project came on the heels of Google changing from the visual-based security device of the CAPTCHA, where users have to type the letters that they see in an image. Google added an audio component as a response to online petitions and outcry from the visually-impaired users. Blind users were not able to access many Google services, such as GMail, Blogger, Google Groups, and a Google Account as the visual-based security kept them from participating in Google’s services.
Dr. Raman comes from a background of advocating standards-based programming and structured data on the web. This made its way to the Accessible Search algorithm that favors standards-based websites. This was a natural method of creating the accessible focus of the search:
“For accessibility, clean, well-structured semantic markup is the best thing you could hope to have. The three key phrases "clean" "well-structured" and "semantic" are all important in the above. Adherence to specs definitely makes checking easier. . . I believe that Web sites creating clean, well-formed XHTML content will, over time, find it significantly easier to serve all their users better -- simply because their content will be easier to manage and evolve.â€
The Accessible search was received positively by the Blind community, yet many low-vision users took issue with the tagline of “Search for the Visually Impaired.†This was typical of larger issues in the accessibility community that many sites are accessible for blind users, yet the same amount of accessibility is not available to low-vision users, who require different methods in order to access the content.
Regardless of a few criticisms, the reception was positive overall. The end result was that users found this to be a useful tool. “And that’s our goal,†said Dr. Raman.
Despite the contention among the different groups, Google is widely accepted as the search engine of choice. The main reason is the uncluttered interface, which makes it easy for users using magnification interfaces, screen readers, or a joystick interface.
Diversity of Access
The main obstacle is that accessibility is varied by need, rather than a single fix. Because of the varied nature of access, assistive technology, and multiple needs, sites must cater to a host of diverse combinations.
Here is a small sample of that diverse group and how they rely on the search interface:
Lee
Lee has albinism, and one of the main factors is low-vision. Lee is a long-time computer and Internet user and has had extremely low-vision since birth. The growth of the Internet has been the opening of a limitless world for her, as phone books, maps and other small-print formats have all been replaced with internet versions that are easier to understand and read.
She relies on the Apple’s built-in magnification software in her daily browsing. She prefers to view yellow or white text on a black background for added contrast. She prefers to use the search engine Big.com, which is powered by Ask. Big.com is built specifically for low-vision users, enabling them to read the large-font results without eye strain.
Lee explains how she sees:
“I have a difficulty seeing details at a distance. I also have problems reading small print and light and glare are an issue as well. I have nystagmus (an uncontrollable and irregular motion of the eyes). The world doesn't move, but my brain has to work harder to provide a stable image. Eye fatigue is an issue. Compared to most people with albinism, I have fairly good vision and am able to get by with minor modifications.â€
The Accessibility search was not helpful to her, as it was obvious that it was initially created for blind users. However, she is a Google Search fan. She would like the ability to store her Google preferences through a cookie so that her background and text color preferences would be automatic.
Lee is very active in the albinism community, which shares information, but she was not aware of the new Accessible Search feature. She feels that search engines respond to the accessibility community very slowly and thinks that information passes slowly as a “trickle-down†effect.
Glenda
Glenda has an inspirational story and is currently writing a book about overcoming Cerebral Palsy and building a life for herself. Glenda uses a combination of assistive technologies to interact online. Her main input device is a keyboard, on a non-slip mat. This is critical as she slides her hand along the top of the keyboard and uses her left thumb to hit each key. Any movement or involuntary jerk would move the keyboard if not for the non-slip mat. This also affects her use of a standard mouse. It its place she uses a joystick to control the cursor movements. Along with this, she uses word prediction software that predicts the words that she is typing, which saves on keystrokes.
Glenda does not have any vision impairments, but she relies on interfaces that are clear, simple, and have a consistent design. The consistent design makes it easier for her to find information, while cluttered pages and flashing animation distract her from easily navigating the page. She prefers the Google Toolbar because of the simple interface and availability for searches.
Even though she is a ten-year internet user, she relies on simple interfaces to use websites, read pages, and interact. She does not need the low-vision or blind accessibility features, but rather features than enable her to input information easily and do not distract her by moving or flashing elements.
Chris
Chris is a JAWS power-user; in fact, he had a major hand in its development. He is blind, but is able to use the internet and related technologies faster than most sighted persons. He has been online long before HTML was the protocol and used to use emacs as an interface to a chat program.
Chris prefers Google and Ask, mainly for the clean interfaces they offer, but also likes using search pages designed for hackers, especially when searching for technical information. No matter which search engine he uses, he is able to use all of the tricks in JAWS to filter out the noise and find specific information.
For users who don’t understand how to use JAWS, Chris understands their frustration:
“Unfortunately, most users don't know about or care to invest the time in learning how to access such things quickly, so [they] struggle with "accessibility." I think, on search engines, the greatest accessibility problems are no longer issues that can be corrected with the WAI or 508 guidelines but, rather, are design principles for usability. What is "usable" to people with varying levels of vision impairment has hardly been studied and those of us interested in doing so are few and far between. So, in my opinion, moving from "accessible" to "usable" will take another decade.â€
To Chris, and many others, it is a factor of usability, which is why Google and Ask get high marks for their simple interface. Yahoo and MSN search are not rated highly because of the portal style interface that is loaded with information and links, which is “too noisyâ€. Search engines that use the Turing test to filter bots are also a huge obstacle to enjoying many of the custom features. Google’s removal of the Turing test was big news to the blind community this year.
Overall, Chris feels that search engines have improved as a whole, mainly by integrating more accessibility and standards-based programming into their results pages. But no matter what anyone says, he still finds Flash to be an “accessibility nightmare.†He seeks information that “is best expressed as text or audio.â€
Continued Development at Google
Obviously, progress hasn’t stopped for future development of Google’s accessible search. Recently, the Accessible Search has been improved to give blind users access to the same advanced search features that are available in the regular Google search.
Dr. Raman, who has been intimately involved with building speech-enabled interfaces for many years, sees the Google Accessible Search as “a good first step in delivering the most accessible information online†and that Google will continue to develop ways to be more accessible.
He welcomes any user feedback, as “we get better when we know what works for the user and welcome feedback on everything from improving taglines to adding new features.â€
Dr, Raman feels that the impact of the Accessible Search will go beyond a simple service and one that will affect the development of the web. “I hope that as we continue to improve Accessible Search, we’ll have a long-term positive impact on increasing awareness of the need to create clean, accessible Web content.â€
Interview with Google’s Dr. T.V. Raman
This is part one of an interview series that I had performed this fall while researching for an article. The article ended up being much too large for publication, so I have decided to publish the interviews and the full text of the article here at Accessibility Blog.
Part one is the interview with T.V. Raman, who was instrumental in creating the Accessible Search interface at Google.
How was the idea for the accessible search received?
Working on Accessible Search has been a very positive experience for everyone involved. From the start, within Google, the idea of Accessible Search was received as a useful tool and an important first step. Interestingly, although there was a lot of feedback from the accessibility community as to how Google could improve accessibility to some of our services, the actual idea of Accessible Search as a tool to help find accessible content wasn't necessarily on top of anyone’s list. However, from our perspective, we thought that offering new search functionality built on what we already have in place, was the fastest and best route to helping users discover pages that would be most useful to them.
I think our instinct was right because Accessible Search has been a very positive experience from the start and continues to be so. That goes from building it to seeing the initial positive reaction from the user community and continuing to improve the product to date. I hope that as we continue to improve Accessible Search, we’ll have a long-term positive impact on increasing awareness of the need to create clean, accessible Web content.
It seems as though you are taking into account some of the elements of standards-based programming in the algorithm. Are standards anything of concern at Google? Do you find that sites written according to W3C standards are more relevant in general?
For accessibility, clean, well-structured semantic markup is the best thing you could hope to have. The three key phrases "clean" "well-structured" and "semantic" are all important in the above. Adherence to specs definitely makes checking easier. However, I do not believe that passing a checker that validates ones markup for structure is a sufficient condition to verify accessibility. I can easily create XHTML documents that will pass every static checker but may potentially end up not being accessible, i.e. any one measure is very easy to game. That being said, I believe that Web sites creating clean, well-formed XHTML content will, over time, find it significantly easier to serve all their users better -- simply because their content will be easier to manage and evolve.
Do you have ways of distinguishing appropriate and inappropriate ALT attributes?
Google scores ALT attributes appropriately, and things like stuffing a 14-page essay into an ALT tag won't help you rank better and will annoy your users. We encourage users to use ALT and TITLE tags in the best way for users, and that work well for Google as well."
In general, what issues does Google believe it can authoritatively decide are "accessible" - given that only the validation of code and absence of deprecated features can be fully tested automatically?
I believe our "abilities" in the above are likely to be a moving target. I think of it as being analogous to our ability to detecting email spam. Also, keep in mind that we’re still soliciting feedback from the user community and evolving it further, which is why it was launched in Google Labs.
How has the accessible search been received by blind users?
So far, its reception has been very positive. There’s been some criticism in the blogosphere saying "this isn't needed, sites should just follow access standards" but end-users who are struggling with the mess we have on the Web today definitely appear to find this a useful tool and that's our goal.
Is Google working with the blind community to make them aware of the Accessible Search?
We've announced it on many of the blindness related lists and have spent time briefing some of the journalists that cover this topic. In general, the blind/visually impaired user community in the U.S. is very well connected, in that users become aware of services fairly quickly. If it's useful, word gets around quickly. We've relied on word-of-mouth, just like we do for so many of our product launches, which is a testament to our usability.
Many low-vision users weren't impressed, as the tagline said for the visually impaired, but wasn't any better than the usual search. Are there plans to expand the accessible search for all vision types?
Let's separate the tagline from actual user experience. We got a lot of flak from different users just on word choice e.g. "visually impaired" vs. "visually disabled" vs. "visually challenged" vs. ...and, personally, I believe it's impossible to come up with a catch phrase that covers everyone, makes everyone happy and at the same time conveys the entire gamut of the user population and the exact meaning of the product.
As for search results with Accessible Search, our intention for this Google Labs experiment was to see if we could reorder results based on accessibility. It seems that many users just saw the name "Accessible Search" --- and then went to the results page expecting an entirely different layout of results. When they didn't see something entirely different, then went away thinking it saying "it just looks the same."
Since more than one person had this experience, our take away is that we need to get better at communicating what Accessible Search is really all about. We get better when we know what works for the user and welcome user feedback on everything from improving taglines to adding new features.
Are there more plans for Google to become more accessible?
Building Accessible Search is a good first step in delivering the most accessible information online and we hope to continue developing ways that Google can be more accessible.
Are you working on additional accessibility projects?
While we don't talk about specific products before they launch, I’ve been thinking about a few projects in this area.
Can you give us a little history about yourself?
Absoutely. http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman
A Charity Worth Supporting
No matter where your political feeling may lie, there is no doubt that our troops are among the finest in the world. They deserve our thanks and support for their sacrifices.
Those who suggest that these soldiers are less intelligent or unable to gain regular jobs show their ignorance. Being a veteran myself, I served with many intelligent, hard-working, and dedicated people, who just happened to be soldiers as well. These brave men and women are deserving of our respect and admiration, as they and their tradition are the reason that we have the freedoms that we enjoy.
When I found out about this organization, I had to bring it to light here at the Accessibility Blog. It is called Project Valour-IT.
Project Valour-IT stands for Voice Activated Laptops for our Injured Troops. This organization is attempting to purchase and install accessibility software for wounded troops. The majority of accessibklity software is voice recognition software, as many of the wounded have suffered hand and arm injuries, or have an amputated limb. This organization wants to get this technology to the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines recovering at home or in military hospitals.
As of October 2006, Valour-IT has distributed nearly 600 laptops to severely wounded soldiers across the country. Here's how it started:
Project Valour-IT began when Captain Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss was wounded by an IED while serving as commander of a tank company in Iraq in June 2005.As he began to recover, CPT Ziegenfuss wanted to return to writing his blog, but serious hand injuries hampered his typing. When a loyal and generous reader gave him a copy of the Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred software, other readers began to realize how important such software could be to CPT Ziegenfuss' fellow wounded soldiers and started cast about for a way to get it to them.
A fellow blogger (blog author) who writes under the pseudonym FbL contacted Captain Ziegenfuss and the two realized they shared a vision of creating libraries of laptops with voice-controlled software that could be brought to the bedsides of wounded soldiers whose injuries prevented them from operating a standard computer. FbL contacted Soldiers' Angels, who offered to help develop the project, and Project Valour-IT was born.
If you are interested in donating or supporting this cause, I urge you to go to the Project Valour-IT site and see some of the stories of soldiers that have been helped by this great charity.
New Assistive Technology Update
Voice Recognition and Learning
ClaroRead, from EnableMart, enables users to integrate with Dragon Naturally Speaking to create a powerful tool for reading, proofreading and composing emails, papers or homework assignments. People with dyslexia benefit from the features like advanced spell checking, homophone support, word prediction, and audio feedback. When used with Dragon NaturallySpeaking, ClaroRead becomes learning software that can be voice controlled for easier access.
Word Prediction Software
Premier Predictor Pro, from Premier Assistive Technology, is a word predictor program that integrates with all of the programs on a user's computer and websites. The program scans documents on the hard drive and builds a customized prediction list of words. The tool also allows for easy dictionary look up and a text-to-speech function that says the word to make sure that it was the intended word for the user. This technology eliminates keystrokes and also assists with cognitive disabilities, such as dyslexia.
Assistive Technology Comparison Shopping
Empower Technologies teams with Microsoft to offer Assistive Technology products through comparison shopping sites including MSN Shopping and Windows Live Shopping. With the increasing need and demand for AT products, Microsoft partnered with Empower’s shopping comparison solution to offer consumers side-by-side comparison shopping.
MSN Shopping AT Comparison
New Technology and Accessibility – Collision Course?
Trenton Moss at WebCredible provides his opinion of the future of accessibility. In doing so, he gives a good overview of new technologies and their impact on accessibility.
Trenton provides a good explanation of AJAX and accessibility. The increased usability and dynamic nature of this technology also makes an accessible alternative much more dofficult. New technologies are widening the divide between dynamic usability features and accessibility. New Web2.0 applications provide an easy way for users to interact in feature-rich environments. However, accessibility is not able to keep up with the amount and the diversity of user generated content.
One prediction he gives I would like to explore in more detail. Trenton feels that the once frowned upon separate accessible versions may have to make a come-back, as interactive interfaces do not often allow full accessibility.
I agree that other routes should be researched, but at what point does creating a featureless, accessible, text based interface become more appealing? A development firm may find that the option of creating simple interface is much more affordable than re-creating or dual-development of a system that offers full features and accessibility.
In theory, they are following the letter of accessibility law (which barely exists anyway), but will users accept that as an alternative? Or would users rather have a simple interface that is understandable and gets the job done?
The Moving Target of Accessibility
I’m working on a large government accessibility project, and it is one of the most eye-opening and challenging projects I’ve been on. Not so much because of the work involved, but because of the attitudes and the attempt to totally comprehensive in meeting accessibility standards.
First, the attitudes. If I hear one more time that “we only have to make this accessible for less than 1% of people,†I’m going to go insane. No matter how many times it is explained, or reasons expressed. The motivating factor for being accessible seems to be, simply – not to get sued.
Second – for an extensive system to be used by citizens and employees, this is a huge project that has nuances throughout. I am really looking forward to being able to consult on the testing of the system and get my hands on some of the awesome assistive technology that is being used for access.
Down to business
What amazes me the most if the ground that has to be covered in creating a comprehensive accessibility plan. The very moment you dismiss something as being “irrelevantâ€, or “a small percentage,†you’ve missed the entire point of the project.
Accessibility is a matter of allowing people to access information in a method that is understandable and usable. The difficulty intrinsic to the project is the variance among assistive technology and the access methods. This is where I wish I could come up with some kind of chart that explains why this is such a difficult proposition.
Accessibility is not linear
Accessibility is not a horizontal approach where one single technique is used on a sliding scale to meet the needs of a group of people. The higher you move the slider, the more people you give access to – unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. What does exist is an amazing testament to the human will to overcome. I wish I could come up with some sort of chart to explain the process, I am working on it, but it’s taking some time to think through the many variations.
Here are some examples:
Vision
To look at it as a continuum; we can start with low vision as a starting point, as that is the beginning stages of assistive technology. Usually low vision can be overcome with screen magnifiers, or at minimum, increased text size within a browser. Both also benefit from high-contrast settings.
On the other side of low vision is no vision. Users are then split between screen readers, Braille displays or a combination of the two. However it does show an interesting point that is commonly overlooked - not all blind users know Braille. To interface back to a website or system there are a few assistive technology devices, but many types within the market; Braille keyboards and speech-to-text programs.
Congitive
However, screen readers are not just used in the assistive vision realm. Many people with dyslexia, which falls into the Cognitive Disorder category, use screen readers to assist in the reading and interpretation of the content. These users rely on the design, colors and overall presentation of the site as cues, but the reality is that most of these users have excellent vision, but still use a screen reader.
This is important to note, as many programmers would simply dump anyone using a screen reader into a text-only version of an application or website. However, knowing that not all screen reader can be lumped into the vision category interrupts this line of thinking.
Physical
Perhaps the most amazing category of assistive technology devices is in the physical category. I am always amazed to see the amount of creativity in this area. From large-key keyboards and speech to text programs, both of which are also used by low-vision users, to laser pointer keyboards, headset pointers, and an amazing array of similar devices.
There is so much cross-over in the types of access, that to lump accessibility into a small percentage of specific users is to ignore the bigger picture. To put it simply, anyone who complains that the text is too small can use assistive technology. Anyone who has arthritis or other physical limitation to typing or using a mouse can benefit from assistive technology.
Many times it is a small change in the big scheme of things, but the variety of technology is so large, and the benefits so huge, that a simple linear view of this issue is the most limiting factor.
Microsoft, IBM in Accessibility Headlines
First, Microsoft, who claims that Vista will be the most accessible Windows OS.
3 areas of Increased Accessibility
There are three areas that increase this functionality; first the accessibility options will no longer be labeled as such, as they found that most people will not use those options as they do not consider themselves disabled.
Accessibility Interview
However, Microsoft did find that 57% of working-age computer users can benefit from accessible technology. To remedy this, and to satisfy the accessibility needs of a wide variety of users, a wizard will walk new users through new features and gather information about their working habits, requirements and preferences. This could result in a naturally larger font size for some users, and less reliance on audio cues for others.
Functions
In a second step, functions such as speech recognition and screen magnification have been emphasized in the new OS. The speech recognition will also improve over time as it “learns†each user’s vocabulary and style. Included in this is a magnification layer that will enlarge graphics and text without the pixilation that happens in current programs or features. To change this, text will be rendered at a larger size from the start, and then reduced based on the preferences of the user.
Third Party Integration
The third area of improvement is Microsoft’s UI Automation. This feature will enable third-party devices to take advantage of the accessibility features built into Vista. Rob Sinclair, director of Microsoft's Accessible Technology Group is excited about the developments, as the vision of a computer adapting to individual users is no longer a concept – which is an interesting premise.
I have long thought that each user should be able to customize the OS to his needs. There are many components of Windows that could be used to create a better user experience, yet they are not easily understandable, and most users are afraid to “mess†with their settings. A wizard that interviews users about their habits and needs could be a great way to begin the set-up for a personalized experience that will reduce frustrations of small text, inaudible cues, and enjoyment of features never before realized.
IBM Donates Code
From the IBM Side, IBM is once again donating code to the open-source community. IBM will work to integrate Dynamic Web Accessibility into the Dojo Toolkit widget set. This will create better accessibility interface features for developers using AJAX and Dojo. This is critical for screen readers and magnifiers, as screen readers have not been able to work within applications using AJAX technology.
AJAX, JavaScript & Accessibility
AJAX does not play well with screen readers, and Ajax cannot be considered an accessible technology yet. Many accessiblity advocates have expressed concern about assistive technology support for this technology. Roger Johansson has researched this and has put together a great resource of accessibility issues and commentaries about AJAX & Javascript.