Dear AccessWorld Editor,
I am writing to request that AccessWorld publish a series that will empower ordinary screen reader users to better advocate for greater web accessibility.
Last night, I had to struggle unsuccessfully with the new Yahoo Groups interface. A volunteer organization I'd recently joined made participation in this group mandatory, and I could not adjust my preferences without using the Yahoo Groups pages.
I talk to students with vision loss who face these challenges daily, whether it's attempting to buy groceries on the web, participating in an online class discussion, updating a résumé on a job bank, posting a notice on a web-based bulletin board, or purchasing travel tickets.
Despite all the attention given to designing accessible Flash, despite all the training on how to navigate headings, frames, links, and tables, and despite new features screen reader vendors roll out regularly to make the web supposedly easier to use, my experience is that it isn't.
When I'm struggling with some frustrating site, I often ask myself, "Is it this site or is it me? Have I forgotten some detail from my screen reader training" Should I be trying to use Firefox and not IE on this site" Should I learn ChromeVox? Would NVDA work better to read the screen here, or is this simply an inaccessible page, and am I wasting my time?"
I keep my browsers and screen access solutions upgraded, but sometimes access degrades with new updates. For example, with JAWS 14 and IE 10 I no longer am able to review the screen with the JAWS cursor to find and click on items. With newer websites, you sometimes are supposed to turn the virtual cursor off and use the arrows to change focus, but on other pages, often on the same site, you need to follow traditional virtual cursor and quick key navigation practices. How is a poor user supposed to know which "mode" to enable?
After a couple of grumpy and fruitless hours, I do usually give in and track down a sightling, only to get information I can't readily use. "The preferences button is on the left nearer the bottom," my helper will say. Or "The required fields you need to fill are in red." Or the sighted person will say "When you did that the box disappeared." Basically the sighted assistant has no idea how the screen reader is rendering the page to me, and the screen reader has no way of communicating to me how the web page looks to a sighted person. We are speaking different languages, the screen reader with its fingers deep in the document object model, and my sighted friend with her view of colors, fonts, and placement. Particularly irksome is that the visual layout of the page, so evident to the sighted, has disappeared from the screen reader's rendering. Yet, the geographic relationships between objects often communicate important information. So when the sighted friend tells me to click to the right of where I am, or when I try to show where it's reading or displaying braille now, it's impossible for us to work together to figure things out.
After I've gotten sighted help to click on buttons the screen reader doesn't see, to read important messages that for the life of me I never found and to fill in fields that aren't labeled, I decide to complain to the webmaster. I carefully craft a polite letter explaining that the site isn't accessible and ask that they fix specific items. For example, I might complain that though they use ARIA, all the regions are simply labeled "Region" making them useless for navigation purposes. Or I might point out that elements I need to interact with are unlabeled graphics or that posts in an online forum are not separated by any navigable elements. Frequently, I can't even figure out what to tell them is wrong.
If my letter goes to a faceless corporation, I'm unlikely to get a reply. A smaller company's customer service does often answer my letters however. They tell me the page is 508-compliant and that they've followed accessibility guidelines.
They ask me to repeat, in exact detail the steps I took so they might replicate my problem in-house.
This cookie-cutter support response isn't helpful. Product support agents are not likely using a screen reader, and my explaining the steps I took isn't going to resolve the problem. So once again I patiently e-mail them, explaining that though their site did pass automated accessibility checkers, labeling graphics with the alt tag of "Click Here" provides no useful information, and that requiring the user drag elements on the page to reorder a list is not helpful if you can only use the keyboard. The support agent assigned to my "issue" is unlikely to even know what a screen reader is, much less anything about HTML or accessible web design.
Complaining to the screen reader vendors doesn't really work either. Perhaps my problem is indeed a bug in the screen reader, but how would I know" And the vendors can't possibly take the time to look at every site out there. All the screen reader vendors do is add more features, many of which simply extend the learning curve and drive us farther away from the web experience of the sighted.
I have a very basic knowledge of HTML, and I understand today most sites are built with a CMS, a content management system, so the webmasters themselves may simply be clicking on objects to build the site, and not know much more HTML than I do. I wonder whether the CMS then is the culprit or if it has features to improve accessibility that the web designer has simply neglected to employ.
I believe AccessWorld can address this with an article that answers the following questions:
- How do you know as a user whether a site is inaccessible or you need to review your screen reader training"
- How do you determine and document the problems with the site" Can you tell which CMS was used to build [the site], and is this information helpful"
- How do you contact someone in charge of a website to express your concerns and be heard"
- What references can you put the webmaster in touch with to help them improve a site's accessibility"
Basically, we need a web accessibility series that is not geared for the web developer but instead for the average screen reader user!
Deborah Armstrong
Dear AccessWorld Editor,
In AccessWorld's September "Letters to the Editor," Richard Petty asks for an accessibility review of online learning.
I work at a community college and act as a support reference to others at colleges throughout my state when problems with access technology arise. To save funding, more and more campuses are turning to online courses to broaden the scope of their offerings. Not only does each college use its own course management system, but administrators are turning to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) to help students succeed. Though a few dedicated people are toiling to plug the ditches of inaccessibility, in large, most of these courses are a challenge for screen reader users.
And academia is ignoring the problem.
I'm thinking a good way for AccessWorld to start is with MOOC platforms [that[ are free and available worldwide to any user. Consider reviewing courses from the four big networks: Coursera, EdX, Udacity, and Canvas.net.
Next, consider reviewing some representative samples of the customized courses based on popular platforms like Moodle and Blackboard.
You also might wish to interview the individuals who are trying to improve access to online learning.
Lastly, I'd like to see some steps the average student can take when he or she enrolls for a course that turns out to be less than accessible.
Best regards,
Deborah Armstrong
Dear AccessWorld Editor,
I would like to say how much I appreciate the work that goes in to AccessWorld articles and the AccessWorld app. It's a fantastic resource for information. I am wondering if it would be possible to have an in-app notification when a new issue of AccessWorld is available.
Regards
Mike Taylor
Response from Lee Huffman, AccessWorld Editor-in-Chief:
Hello Mike. Thank you for reading AccessWorld and writing in with your suggestion. An in-app notification is a feature the AFB app development team had not considered. That is a great idea, and we will certainly take it into consideration for a future app update.
Dear AccessWorld Editor,
My comments are in response to Joe Strechay's October article entitled, 2013 Employment Resources for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired.
This is an excellent article with interesting options and points. I'm glad the picture is improving somewhat.
I would like to make AccessWorld readers aware of The Statler Center out of Buffalo, New York. A friend of mine attended this program in fall 2011 and found it very well run. People did what they said they'd do. Too often in programs for the blind, people do not do what is promised and subtly, and not so subtly, imply somehow the blind person is at fault for not finding a job. There seems to still be little accountability in this arena. I vividly recall explaining what the National Library Service was to a job coach working on a Master's in Rehab. She was nearly finished with her education. Somehow, her university missed something somewhere! I also recall participating in a medical transcription program many years ago. A key selling point for me was their saying we'd do an internship. We never did.
On another topic, I want to bring it to AFB's attention that I have found, and it concerns me, that looking for mentors on CareerConnect can be tricky and problematic. I was once told, "It's hard getting a job in my field" by a highly placed, prominent mentor who offered little else in the way of mentoring. Several e-mails to other mentors also went unanswered. It does AFB no service to have unhelpful or unresponsive mentors. Perhaps there should be a rate the mentors section in Career Connect. I realize, not everyone has the time to mentor well.
I hope more people with vision loss assume management roles in National Industries for the Blind and in head-hunting firms. I find the job search process today very complicated and exhausting. Too often online searches include running up against websites with capchas, tricky edit boxes, and complicated layouts. My friend found Statler excellent in helping her with this problem.
I suspect the continuing complexity of access technology has caused some people to become exhausted in always struggling to learn new software. Personally, I have found no teachers up to standard in my home state, possibly due to the fact we have no screening agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this article.
David F.
Dear AccessWorld Editor,
I am writing in response to Aaron Preece's October 2013 article, Fine Reader Professional Version 11 by ABBYY and Text Cloner Pro Version 11.5 by Premier Literacy.
I used Text Cloner Pro for eight years and got along fairly well with it, until I attempted to upgrade to version 10 in 2011. To make a long story short, my computer crashed, necessitating the purchase of a new one. Unfortunately, that didn't solve the problem. It was months before I learned the flatbed scanner I was using was incompatible with the newer version of Text Cloner Pro. This was also the case with other scanners I tried in my futile attempts to resolve the issues the program posed. The company's customer service is poor, assuming you can get it at all.
Spend a couple hundred dollars more and get Serotek's DocuScan Plus. No more worries about whether your software is up-to-date either. I made the switch last year and have no regrets.
Sincerely,
John Wesley Smith