El pasado 17 de septiembre de 2020 se celebró el Inclusive Design 24:
A free 24-hour online event for the global community. It celebrates inclusive design and shares knowledge and ideas from analogue to digital, from design to development, from planners to practitioners, and everything and everyone in between.
Todos los vídeos del evento están disponibles en la lista Inclusive Design 24.
People often include screen reader users in the much larger group of keyboard-only users. Whilst this is correct (most screen reader users don’t use a mouse), it also creates a false impression of the way screen reader users navigate content.
To help explain this, I’m going to generalise and refer to the two following groups of people:
- Keyboard users: people who don’t use a mouse but can see the content.
This is a massive over-simplification of the different groups, but the ability to see the content or not is the crux of the difference in navigation.
- Screen reader users: people who don’t use a mouse and can’t see the content.
Las Pautas de Accesibilidad del Contenido Web, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, tiene tres criterios de éxito sobre el contraste mínimo de los elementos de una página web:
Sin embargo, no dice nada de lo contrario, el contraste máximo. Pero ¿pueden existir personas que tenga problemas cuando el contraste sea excesivo?
Sí, hay personas que pueden tener problemas.
En Accessibility and me: Marian Foley podemos leer:
I've been partially sighted since I was 9, and need large text and low contrast colours to be able to work. My requirements are quite unusual for someone with sight loss, as most visually impaired users need high contrast colours. My retinas can't process colour contrast properly, and spending more than a couple of minutes looking at high contrast material (web pages, documents, anything with regular stripes, spots or checks) gives me a splitting headache and motion sickness.
Y en este mensaje de Twitter:
Does anyone who works in accessibility for @Microsoft or @Apple follow me? I'd like to discuss settings needed for those with Irlen Syndrome. To us, text wobbles like an optical illusion. Luckily, it can be fixed with low-contrast color overlays, but that feature doesn't exist.
Según la Wikipedia, el síndrome de Irlen es:
Irlen syndrome, occasionally referred to as scotopic sensitivity syndrome (SSS) or Meares-Irlen syndrome, very rarely as asfedia, and recently also as visual stress, is a proposed disorder of vision.
En Así es como usa Internet un ciego. Al menos algunos se cuenta:
Si bien es cierto que la mayoría podemos hacernos una ligera idea de las incomodidades a las que se ven sometidas las personas que padecen algún tipo de discapacidad visual, lo cierto es que pocos somos conscientes de cómo estos individuos se desenvuelven en determinados entornos y actividades.
Es el caso de la navegación por Internet, un acceso sin el que muchos seríamos incapaces de “vivir” y que Facebook y otras plataformas tratan de poner más fácil. Pero, ¿en qué consisten estas iniciativas? ¿Cómo lo logran exactamente? ¿De qué herramientas se valen? Analizamos el contexto actual y les preguntamos a algunos de ellos.
This article reports the results of a study comparing evaluation accessibility plugins extensions for the Chrome web browser. Eight of the most well-known tools among developers were chosen. All tools are free or available under an open-source license, and work with the Chrome browser. The tools were compared based on their feature set, their usability and their evaluation results of ten of the Alexa top websites. We found that individual tools still provide limited coverage of the success criteria; the coverage of success criteria varies quite a lot from evaluation engine to evaluation engine; what are the most and least covered success criteria in automated evaluations. After analysing the results, we highly recommend to use more than one tool (with a different engine) and to complement automated evaluation with manual checking.
Según Eric Eggert, los accessibility overlay basados en inteligencia artificial no cumplen lo que prometen. Lo cuenta en su vídeo 5 False Claims 1-Line “AI” Accessibility Script Vendors Make:
Y el inicio de la transcripción:
They claim to be the be-all and end-all of all accessibility worries: “AI” accessibility tools. They say they provide “100% WCAG 2.1 compliance”. They say it only takes one line of JavaScript to “fix your website for accessibility”.
Who are “they”? VC-backed companies that promise affordable, effortless compliance for your website. If you think “that sounds too good to be true”, you’re right. It is indeed quite the opposite of true.
Here are five claims that “AI” accessibility script vendors make that are misleading or completely untrue.
(Intro.)
I’m Eric Eggert, a Web Accessibility Expert. You can follow me as @yatil — Y-A-T-I-L — on social media. If you have questions about this or other videos, or want to propose a topic, ask in the comments, or use the hashtag #askYatil on Twitter.
Before we get into it, whenever I say AI, please imagine the most expressive air-quotes gesture possible.
Okay!
El próximo 17 de noviembre de 2020 participaré en el Seminario Permanente sobre Discapacidad PUDH-FCPyS UNAM Discapacidad y TIC's: ¿Exclusión virtual y digital? organizado por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Este seminario comienza el 3 de noviembre.
Más información en la página de Facebook.
Assistive technologies (ATs), which are hardware and software that help us perceive and interact with digital content, come in diverse forms. ATs can use a whole host of user input, ranging from clicks and keystrokes to minor muscle movements. ATs may also present digital content in a variety of forms, such as Braille displays, color-shifted views, and decluttered user interfaces (UIs).
One more commonly known type of AT is the screen reader. Programs such as JAWS, Narrator, NVDA, and VoiceOver can take digital content and present it to users through voice output, may display this output visually on the user’s screen, and can have Braille display and/or screen magnification capabilities built in.
If you make websites, you may have tested your sites with a screen reader. But how do these and other assistive programs actually access your content? What information do they use? We’ll take a detailed step-by-step view of how the process works.
Este dato se puede leer en el artículo Microsoft Reveals 6.1% Disability Representation For The First Time:
A newly released report from Microsoft reveals that 6.1 % of the company’s U.S. employees self-identify as disabled, meaning they have a physical, mental or cognitive disability. If you’re not quite sure how to put that number in context, that’s because few companies ever disclose similar numbers. This is the first time Microsoft has included disability in their annual diversity and inclusion report—and although the number may be modest, its significance will be understood worldwide.
[...]
Microsoft already employs people with all types of disabilities and is actively looking for new ways to be inclusive. The company has slowly and persistently chipped away at the issue since Satya Nadella became CEO in 2014. It takes patience and persistence to move the needle. Even the basics can’t be taken for granted. Many Americans don’t know that most disabilities are not visible, likely because they are not openly discussed and can be a source of shame or stigma. “Diabetes, dyslexia, and depression are three great examples of this. To understand our representation, we need data which means cultivating a workplace where employees can be confident, have pride in their disability and ultimately, confidentially self-identify whether they have a disability or not,” says Lay-Flurrie.
[...]
Microsoft defines disability, using the definition of disability from the World Health Organization in both in internal conversation and external conversations: “Disability is not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.”
In case you don’t make it all the way to the bottom, I feel, based on the results of testing each player (and comparing to my own Accessible Video Player project), that relying on native video players should be used with caution. This is my opinion stemming from experience, but I found most to have poor keyboard and screen reader support, which may lead to frustrated users.
There were a lot of inconsistencies across the board as far as keyboard and screen reader support. Some lose focus when the video controls receive focus then fade away, forcing the user to re-position themselves to adjust playback. Others did not trap keyboard focus in full-screen mode, leading to a similar situation as an inaccessible modal window allowing content to be accessed "behind" the window. One player in particular featured very awkward keyboard support where controls were visible on the screen but could not be focused.
