Archived entries for Accessibility

Web Builder 2.0 Slides

I’m back in my suite at Ceasar’s in Vegas, having just finished presenting my third of three talks at the Web Builder 2.0 conference. Yesterday I presented two talks: my Accessible DHTML talk, and my Yahoo! vs. Yahoo! DHTML Case Studies talk. Today I presented a new talk titled Inside the Yahoo! User Interface (YUI) Library. All three seemed well received, and it was an honor to have a packed room for each. I met lots of great people, and am looking forward to following up with all the new people I met. (Please drop me a note if I didn’t get your email address!)

The Yahoo! User Interface (YUI) Library

This talk was in four parts: Why we build it; What we built; Why we gave it away; Why you might like using it.

Accessible DHTML

What are some techniques for making modern web interfaces accessible?

Yahoo! vs. Yahoo! – Case Studies of Three Mainstream, Large-Scale Ajax/DHTML Implementations

How do you manage complex object/event interfaces? Memory Management? Data Transportation? Etc.

XHTML News: “Role Attribute” and “2.0″ Working Drafts

Two interesting pieces of XHTML news this week. Yesterday the Working Draft for the XHTML Role Attribute was released, and today the eighth public Working Draft of XHTML 2.0 was released.

XHTML 2.0 is clearly important, but I’m especially interested in the Role Attribute because this first public working draft comes out of the excellent Accessible DHTML work contributed to the W3C by IMB, and already functional in Firefix > 1.5.x. Here are the blurbs for each:

XHTML 2.0: Working Draft

2006-07-26: The HTML Working Group has released the eighth public Working Draft of XHTML™ 2.0. A general purpose markup language without presentation elements, XHTML 2 is designed for representing documents for a wide range of purposes across the Web. See the introduction for the differences between XHTML versions 1 and 2. Much of XHTML 2 works in existing browsers. The draft includes an implementation in RELAX NG with DTD and XML Schema implementations to follow. Visit the HTML home page. (Permalink)

XHTML Role Attribute Module: Working Draft

2006-07-25: The HTML Working Group has released the First Public Working Draft of the XHTML Role Attribute Module to provide the ability to integrate the role attribute into any markup language based on XHTML Modularization 1.1. Developed in conjunction with the accessibility community and other groups, the document is the first of a series of XHTML modules designed to help extend the scope of XHTML-family markup languages into new environments. Visit the HTML home page. (Permalink)

New stuff from Yahoo! Developer Network

Blatent plug for work stuff here: I wanted you, my readers, to be amongst the first to hear that we’ve just released lots of new and improved stuff this evening. These three blog posts on yuiblog.com will get you started:

Now you’re ready to head over to YDN for all the details:

Two other things to point out. First, we’ve included CSS packages in this release for the first time, specifically CSS Grids, CSS Fonts and CSS Reset. The second thing, beyond the cool code and design stuff, is that we’ve moved our code distribution and public bug tracking to SourceForge. This will, I believe, be an important step forward for us. Check it all out and let me know what you think.

The future of HTML, in two parts, from IBM Developer Works

I’m not sure how I missed these two articles, one from 2005.12.06 and the other from 2006.01.25. They are both writen by Edd Dumbill, Chair, XTech Conference, and are cross-published to the XML and Web architecture sections of IBM’s developerWorks site.

In these two articles, I’ve presented the salient points of both WHATWG’s HTML 5 and the W3C’s XHTML 2.0. The two initiatives are quite different: The grassroots-organised WHATWG aims for a gently incremental enhancement of HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0, whereas the consortium-sponsored XHTML 2.0 is a comprehensive refactoring of the HTML language.

I recommend reading both (though perhaps start with the second), because together they’re a authoratative, thorough and current introduction/summary of where we are today and where we’re going. If your development practice involves thoughful consideration of your markup layer – and it definitely should – they you’ll want to know this stuff.

They quickly cover significant ground, offering concise overviews of W3C & WHATWG, HTML 5 & XHTML 2.0, some specifics like canvas, Web Forms 2.0, XForms, Web APIs, and Web Application Formats, and make a strong case for “Why XHTML 2.0?”.

Accessible DHTML presentation at CSUN this week

It’s been so busy lately, both professionally and socially, that I haven’t been putting any time into this blog. I’m sorry about that, and have lots of ideas swirling around in my head that I hope to be able to write here soon.

In the near term though, I wanted to let you know that I’ll be in LA this Thurday presenting a paper at the CSUN accessibility conference. The paper/presentation, co-authored by my colleage Victor Tsaran, has the long title, “Yahoo! Experiences with Accessibility, DHTML, and Ajax in Rich Internet Applications”. The 45 minute talk will review the current state of web development and then offer three families of techniques for making the DHTML development that’s at the heart of Web 2.0 accessible to all users.

It’s an interesting and important topic. From 1999 thru 2004 the web became increasingly accessible with the broad adoption of Web Standards and related modern methodologies. Since 2005, these gains have been under pressure as we all race to push the limits of what’s achievable with DHTML in capable and modern browsers. While it is a myth that DHTML is not accessible, in practice the rush jobs and rapid innovations of the day often leave accessibility as but an afterthought. Additionally, as mouse-based desktop interactions — drag and drop for example — become more commonplace online, it’s tempting to exclusively rely on mouse-based input and manipulation which is a cause of concern to the accessibility community (and keyboard-loving geeks everywhere). The straw that often breaks the camel’s back is Ajax, which partial-page updates are often unnoticable to screen readers and other types of assistive technology.

I’ll post slides after the talk, and will be writing about this with Victor in an upcoming article for our Yahoo! User Interface Blog.

Same Language, New Dialect

Vivabit’s Dan Webb wrote an interesting post a few days ago that touches two important topics, both of which I’ve been thinking about a bunch lately. His entry is called DOM Abuse Part 1: Drag and Drop and he says towards the beginning that:

As more and more JavaScript libraries add solid drag and drop support I begin to shiver. Everyone is going to be doing it soon and Im scared.

I’m not scared – I think we’re entering a great era of web design – but I understand exactly what he means. I would categorise his two points as “the accessibility issue” and “the discovery issue.”

First, accessibility: Advanced interactions and behavior provided via JavaScript must be enhancements, not the sole way to accomplish a task. In desktop cut-and-paste, there are at least three ways: keyboard shortcuts; “Edit” menu options; and drag and drop. Accessibility isn’t an optional characteristic of the Web. With what could be considered a gold rush of JavaScript development powering a big chunk of “Web 2.0”, the accessibility gains won over the last four years (Web Standards) are at risk. For JavaScript, the way forward is clear – progressive enhancement, unobtrusive javascript, and Hijax – and championed by the DOM scripting task force.

His second point I’d summarize as the “discoverability issue”. It’s definitely an issue, but it’s also a symptom of a larger overarching issue, what I call “the low expectations issue.” Here’s what he says:

Drag and drop is not a method of interaction you see on the web (at least at the moment) and as such you do really need to be told when to do it. That’s not good. I’m not used to reading what’s on the screen. How are we supposed to know to and when not to try it?

It’s not that the feature isn’t discoverable (though it could certainly be aided by some visual affordances), it’s that he’s not expecting it to be there! On the desktop there are minimal cues because we expect it to just be there, and often don’t need to be told.

In my opinion (with a hat-tip to colleagues Eric Miraglia, Bill Scott, and others), this is a primary design challenge of the day. It’s not just about adding visual affordances, it’s about something bigger. It’s about raising overall expectations in a careful, purposful, we’ve-got-one-chance-to-get-this-right type of way.

Since the beginning, we’ve been lowering expectations of what’s possible in the browser compared to other desktop software. No double-click in the browser. No drag-and-drop in the browser. No right-click, context menus, auto-save, auto-complete, full screen, minimize, layers, spell-check, not even many tooltips.

More broadly: no direct manipulation, no immediate feedback, and no persistence in the browser. On the desktop, we learn by experiementing. In the browser, users have stopped exploring because there hasn’t been a reason to explore, nothing to find. (To make matters worse, every click has traditionally meant many seconds of page teardown and replacement.)

It’s not that we didn’t want to provide a familiar experience, it’s that the technology wasn’t really available in the browser. That’s not true anymore.

But, the availability of new technology isn’t a cure, or a reason to believe we’ll make a successful transition.

Being able to do something does not mean that we should do something. Why is more important that how. Using animation to create 2006’s version of the 1999 Flash splash screen isn’t a why, it’s a “because we can” (and a bad idea). On the other hand, using animation to ease transitions, provide user feedback, maintain user orientation, and promote learning of new idioms are four good reasons why.

But knowing why isn’t the same as doing it well. When I say that we’re got one chance to get it right, I mean this: If we bring the rich interaction patterns of the desktop to the browser in a recognizable, comfortable, thorough, complete and appropriate way, user’s will break through their doubts and quickly transfer their desktop experience into the browser. We won’t have to put big neon signs on our sites saying “drag here”. If we get it right, users will just assume.

On the other hand, if we don’t get it right, if we’re spotty, if we don’t keep the façade intact, then the illusion will not stick. If we make too many missteps, if we leave to many gaps, then the nearly free “user education” and the potential parity of expectations will be gone again. I’m not scared by drag and drop, I’m scared that if we miss this chance to bring richness to the browser, user’s expectations won’t just be low they’ll be shattered.

To be clear, it’s not about replicating the desktop in the browser. They’re different environments. Instead, we want to take the idomatic language users already understand and express it within this new environment. Same language, new dialect.



San Francisco, California | Creative Commons By-2.5 License | Contact

RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and uses Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.