Accessible Search Engine

Without a doubt, my favorite online learning tool is Google where I can generally find answers to just about whatever real world problem I happen to be facing at any given time. I’m not sure how accessible Google and other major search engines are (or aren’t) but I just came across YouSearched which bills itself as The Accessible Search. I would doubt that the quality of search results is as high as the big players, but some of the features may be nice for certain situations.

PDF vs. HTML

Last week I had an opportunity to visit with some faculty and staff at a Community College around the topic of accessible distance education. The school had recently chosen Blackboard as their Learning Management System and is working to adopt an attitude of Universal Design before their instructors learn any other way of doing things– kudos to them.

We talked about understanding the perspective of learners with disabilities, went over semantic markup, alt tags and accessible video . Up to this point everyone seemed to be on the same page. However, there were some differences of opinion when we talked about the best format for displaying content online. The Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies, John-Paul San Giovanni is encouraging instructors to convert their course content into PDF files to promote a uniform format for everything. Since the training, John-Paul and I have opened up a dialog and with his permission, I’m opening the discussion up to Curb Cut readers– I hope you’ll take a second to weigh
in with your opinion (doesn’t everyone has an opinion regarding PDF docs?).

Our discussion has revolved around both accessibility and usability. Regarding accessibility, I put forth an
article titled Adobe Acrobat Accessibility Techniques
from the good folks at WebAIM. John-Paul thoughtfully went through the article and rebutted six points made at the beginning of the article, here are his comments, verbatim:

1. �Not everyone has the latest version of the Acrobat Reader�. This statement could be made for any software product including the browsers being used, word processing software, etc. So what relevant importance does it really have in comparing the advantages/disadvantages of conversion to HTML versus conversion to PDF file? If anything, since Acrobat Reader 6 is a free download, one can have the latest version at no cost and will take less time to download than an updated browser, etc.
2. �Not everyone who has the latest version has the full version with the embedded speech synthesizer�. Again, since it is a free download, how is this point important relevant in comparing the relative accessibility achieved via a �convert to HTML� versus a �convert to PDF�. I wonder when was the last time the author went to the Adobe site for the free download with the speech synthesizer � it�s there.
3. �The embedded speech synthesizer is not as good as the full-featured screen readers � (i.e., JAWS, Window Eyes)�. This is the equivalent of saying EXCEL is not as good of a word processor as WORD. ACROBAT is a tool for making PDF files. JAWS, etc. is a screen reader tool. Is it fair to JAWS does not make PDF files as good as ACROBAT? I do not think so! More disturbing to me, however, is that author missed (or failed to mention) an important point regarding ACROBAT 6 relative to accessibility features, namely, that it accurately translates the structure and tagging of the base document with a competence equal to that of a �convert to HTML� for MS Office products � a major source of e-formatted files.
4. �Not everyone knows that the speech synthesizer exists � in ACROBAT Reader�. And whose fault is that? This point is obviously not an inherent feature of ACROBAT 6. Should a similar statement be made regarding HTML because many of the inexperienced writers of HTML do not know all the parameters available within HTML? One could equally point out that many users of WORD do not know that they can �convert to HTML� from a menu (and, for most that do know, how long did it take them to find out?). In a similar vein, most WORD users do not know of the �Styles� capability and its value during a �convert to HTML�? The fact that many users of WORD do not know of these features of WORD is not an inherent fault of WORD. Similarly, the ignorance of a particular feature of any tool (especially, if accessed via menus) is not an inherent problem with the tool. Since this point does not state an inherent problem with ACROBAT 6, it is irrelevant in comparing the aforementioned alternate approaches to conversion relative to accessibility.
5. �Users who know that the speech synthesizer exists may be reluctant to use it because they do not know how to use it�. With ACROBAT 6, challenged users may use any full-featured screen reader they choose on the resultant PDF. That is part of beauty of what ACROBAT 6 offers regarding accessibility. It is a very important point that it is not necessary to use the embedded synthesizer in ACROBAT Reader 6 � the users can use whatever they are comfortable with. On the other hand, in all honesty, with all the truly difficult things that challenged individuals must learn to do with a computer, three clicks from pull-down menus or, alternatively, clicking ALT then V then A then O or E would probably seem relatively easy. That is all that is involved in the activating the ACROBAT Reader�s speech synthesizer.
6. �If the document is not created with accessibility in mind, it will likely pose accessibility challenges to blind users�. This statement is equally true for �convert to HTML� or the ACROBAT 6 �convert to PDF�. The �convert to HTML� in WORD, PowerPoint, and other products is no better at magically generating good accessibility code than the ACROBAT 6 �convert to PDF�. Consequently, this statement says nothing about the relative advantage of converting to HTML versus converting to a PDF.

What are your thoughts on the above?

On the usability front, I’ll point to two articles. The first one from Jakob Nielsen is titled
PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption where he outlines the “usability crimes” of PDF documents and the second is a rebuttal
to the first titled Adobe’s Robert McDaniels responds (again) to
Nielsen criticisms of PDF which both make good points. What do you think about the usability of PDF docs?

I have my own opinions on the matter, but will reserve them for the comments or a later post. In the meantime, site
stats show we’re getting a fair number of daily visits– even though not many of you comment, I know you’re out there. If you don’t mind, take a second to post your thoughts and on the topic, thanks.

Understanding Experiences of Users with Disabilities

A List Apart published an article a few days ago titled, What is Web Accessibility? by Trenton Moss. The article doesn’t attempt to explain any technical concept, but simply to help the reader understand the implications of different disabilities of web use. WebAIM does the same thing in their Introduction to Web Accessibility by Paul Bohman, especially with the accompanying articles on visual, hearing, motor and cognitive disabilities listed at the bottom of that page, each containing information on specific disabilities in those categories.

Understanding the nature of how different disabilities affect web use (as opposed to simply understanding accessible coding practices) is essential in order to ensure your site is really accessible. If you have a solid understanding of what barriers your visitors might encounter then there may be occasions when it would be okay to break a generally accepted rule or a need to go beyond what is required by accepted guidelines.

So can these perspectives be gained? I think a good place to start would be to talk to persons who might encounter some of the barriers from inaccessible design, ask them questions about their experiences. Articles such as those mentioned above can be helpful, as well as online simulations such as these from WebAIM (Screen Reader, Low-vision and Cognitive), a vision simulation from the State of Vermont or a color blindness simulation from Vischeck.

Other ideas on how to gain this perspective?