Arnautovic nos cuenta que es la primera vez que él ha hecho un test con usuarios con personas que confían en los lectores de pantalla para navegar por la web. Nos cuenta que aprendió mucho sobre su sitio y los elementos que funcionan y los que no. Pero además él aprendió varios aprendizajes sobre los usuarios ciegos que le pueden servir a cualquiera que tenga que hacer un test con usuarios con ellos.
Estos aprendizajes son los siguientes cuatro:
- Sólo porque alguien sea ciego, no significa que sea un experto usando el lector de pantalla
- Ser ciego puede afectar a la inclinación de la gente a aprender nuevas herramientas y tecnologías
- Estar a gusto facilitando con usuarios ciegos
- Los usuarios ciegos son increíbles en crear modelos mentales de los sitios
We thank the community for comments provided on earlier drafts of this document. Your comments have helped us improve our analysis of the state of the art in telling human users apart from their robotic impersonators.
While there are editorial revisions in almost every paragraph of this latest draft, some of the highlights include:
- A new section on Proof of Work;
- A significant rewrite of the section on reCAPTCHA;
To be sure the updated document is as complete as possible, we once again solicit public input on this version. The following questions will help guide your review:
- Two new sections on Turing Tokens and Federated Turing Tokens to discuss recent non-interactive blinded verification approaches which we’ve named “Turing Tokens.”
- Does this document fully capture current problems with CAPTCHA and related systems?
- Are there other CAPTCHA approaches that should be added?
- Are there concerns for certain categories of persons with disabilities that remain unaddressed or insufficiently addressed in this document?
- Are you aware of relevant research or technological development in this area we missed?
- Have we sufficiently addressed CAPTCHA’s problems with internationalization, privacy, and security?
- Is “Turing Tokens” a reasonable name for the blinded verification tokens described in section 3.4? And, is our new visionary section 3.5 based on Turing Tokens clear? Or, should it be its own, separate document?
- Have we mis-characterized anything we discuss?
The concepts of digital accessibility are becoming known and understood by more people every day. As this knowledge gets implemented by a growing number of individuals and companies, some people who were historically excluded from equal access to online information can now consume and contribute to digital experiences more fully — when those experiences are built with their needs and methods of interacting with the material in mind. One too-often-overlooked area of web accessibility is creating content that may be easier for people with dyslexia to understand.
In 2017, the Accessibility Team at the Government Digital Service (GDS) created accessibility personas to highlight common barriers faced by people with particular conditions and provide tips on how to design for them.
These user profiles are used by teams such as user researchers and developers to create services that are accessible to all. For instance, there is a persona for Pawel, a user with Asperger’s and one for Simone, a dyslexic user.
While personas can be a great tool by themselves, we wanted to let people experience the web as that user. So, we created login profiles for each persona. These login profiles simulate the user’s condition and the tools he or she may be using to help with that condition.
After testing on different devices, we found that Chromebooks were the most successful device on which to use our accessibility persona logins. We explain why in more detail further down.
Not everyone uses a mouse to browse the internet. If you’re reading this post on a smartphone, this is obvious! What’s also worth pointing out is that there are other forms of input that people use to get things done. With these forms of input comes the need for focus styles.
People are complicated. We don’t necessarily perform the same behaviors consistently, nor do we always make decisions that make sense from an outsider’s perspective. Sometimes we even do something just to… do something. We get bored easily: tinkering, poking, and prodding things to customize them to better suit our needs, regardless of their original intent.
People are also mortal. We can get sick and injured. Sometimes both at once. Sometimes it’s for a little while, sometimes it’s permanent. Regardless, it means that sometimes we’re unable to do things we want or need to do in the way we’re used to.
People also live in the world. Sometimes we’re put into an environment where external factors conspire to prevent us from doing something the way that we’re accustomed to doing it. Ever been stuck at your parents’ house during the holidays and had to use their ancient-yet-still-serviceable desktop computer? It’s like that.
Subtitles are primarily intended to serve viewers with loss of hearing, but they are used by a wide range of people: around 10% of broadcast viewers use subtitles regularly, increasing to 35% for some online content. The majority of these viewers are not hard of hearing.
This document describes 'closed' subtitles only, also known as 'closed captions'. Typically delivered as a separate file, closed subtitles can be switched off by the user and are not 'burnt in' to the image.
The Subtitle Guidelines describe best practice for authoring subtitles and provide instructions for making subtitle files for the BBC. This document brings together documents previously published by Ofcom and the BBC and is intended to serve as the basis for all subtitle work across the BBC: prepared and live, online and broadcast, internal and supplied.
If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.
Under what circumstances may this not be possible?
- If the feature is available in HTML [HTML51] but it is not implemented or it is implemented, but accessibility support is not.
- If the visual design constraints rule out the use of a particular native element, because the element cannot be styled as required.
- If the feature is not currently available in HTML.
It should be universally understood that automated testing tools cannot offer complete test coverage for all possible accessibility issues on the web. Therefore it stands to reason that if you cannot automatically find all your site’s accessibility issues, you certainly cannot automatically fix all of them, either. This is extraordinarily simple logic. In fact, automatically fixing issues is even less likely to be successful than finding them. This fact is demonstrated within Mallet. While Mallet is extremely good at finding & fixing some issues, it is still limited to around 2-dozen types of ‘fixes’ that work on their own without any configuration. The remainder of Mallet’s fixes require some level of configuration. To put this into perspective, Tenon.io has approximately 200 accessibility tests that look for around 2500 different failure conditions. In other words, we can easily find at least 10x as many issues as we can reliably fix, because fixing the issues requires far more knowledge about the user interface than an automated tool has.Y también dice:
As always, it is important to remind the reader that there are limits to what can be discovered with automatic testing. It stands to reason that if you cannot automatically test for something you definitely cannot fix it, either.
- Captions/ transcripts for audio-only content or audio content in videos.
- Audio description for video content
- Content that relies on sensory characteristics to understand
- Audio control
- Keyboard trap
- Pause, Stop, Hide
- Error prevention and error handling
- Effective focus management
The above is only a subset of the many things in web accessibility that cannot be accurately tested via automated means. Many of them are hugely impactful for people with disabilities.
- Reading level
Ninety-three percent of people with disabilities don’t use a wheelchair, even though the universal symbol that identifies this group is a person in a wheelchair. Liam Riddler, a creative at London’s McCann office, points to his brother, who suffers from Crohn’s disease–a condition that causes inflammation of the digestive tract, potentially causing pain, severe diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss, and malnutrition. It’s an invisible disability: Nobody would know about it by looking at him. Most people don’t understand why he may need to use accessible toilets or take advantage of priority seating.
Public ignorance of these invisible disabilities and the discrimination that results is what prompted Riddler and his colleague–McCann London’s deputy of art Lisa Carrana–to ask an obvious but difficult question: Do we need other symbols for people with invisible disabilities?
Riddler doesn’t claim to have an answer, but he and Carrana want to spur discussion around the issue with a project they have titled Visability93. Half provocation and half an effort to distill the graphical essence of these disabilities, the project is a crowdsourced competition that asks designers to submit their ideas about how to best graphically represent people with different invisible disabilities using individual symbols. So far they have 29 new icons (which you can download as a typeface here) that range from mental illnesses like anxiety, bipolar disorder, or depression, to physical conditions like asthma, arthritis, or diabetes. They’re using them in posters to raise awareness–and starting to imagine how they could potentially be applied in public to remind people that not all disabilities are visible.
