I probably should have read the reading selections in order, but alas I did not. Joe Clark’s article “How Do Disabled People Use Computers” was very informative and helped to put in context the later readings. I really liked his direct, honest approach, especially in raising questions about the terms we use to speak about disabled people (ie. “differently abled” which he says “seems to apply more to zoology, where, say racoons can climb trees but dogs can’t”). Refreshing as this was, his description of types of disabilities was informative and helps in thinking about designing websites for this diverse group of people.

It is true that I have given little thought to taking these disabilities into account when designing sites in the past. That said, I have always operated on the assumption that if you design a site cleanly and clearly, you are halfway there. This is somewhat true. Many of the 25 points in “Dive Into Accessibility” are things that I already do, or at least try very hard to do. For example, choosing a doctype, declaring the language, making the page title meaningful, presenting the main content of a page first, ensuring that colors contrast sufficiently, using title attributes on links, using alt tags on images, using real links (not javascript links), and then others of the points that relate to designing with tables which are for the most part moot, except for using table headings and captions and using them appropriately. These are all things I strive to do as part of my regular design process. Admittedly, my own website and projects I’ve done for class, I have been focused on other elements of design and have sometimes let these important elements fall by the wayside.

That said, it is especially helpful to hear a screen reader (at WebAIM). Wow. I had an incredibly hard time understanding that, and I imagine it isn’t easy and is quite frustrating for anyone needing to learn to do this after losing sight later in life. Also very helpful was the note, made in a couple of these articles, that screen readers will read filenames unless you specify a title or alt attribute. Again, I try to put these in my sites, but now that I understand how exactly they are used (other than the nifty visual tool tip that some see), I will certainly make an effort to ensure these tags are used and used properly.

One final note is that I did not really understand how learning disabled people use the Web. I went to a high school that had a special program for kids with learning disabilities, and I always thought that they read slower because they processed information differently. I didn’t think that it was that they couldn’t read at all. Dyslexia, I always understood, is a disability that one can learn to overcome or compensate for. I know there are others. Some people learn better by hearing than by reading, so couldn’t they get a screen reader? Until I understand more about how this group of people uses the Web, I cannot accommodate them. The suggestion that all websites should be illustrated, as Clark mentions, is indeed a “cure worse than the disease.”

I continue my discussion about learning disabilities and accessibility on Mark Stevens’ Learn More History AND Technology, and I raise some questions about our audience on Maureen Guignon’s CLIOblog. In the end, I think that there are sufficiently accessible websites and there are websites designed to be accessible. Which one you require is a matter of your expected and intended audience, and as Mark says, “It does not take a terrific amount of intellectual ability to figure out that reasonable accommodations should be made in order that “disabled” people may access web pages.” Here here.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am and is filed under design, Clio Wired. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.