In particular, I thought it might be useful to consider the different ways drop-down menus are used with the aim of hopefully identifying the best way of providing keyboard and screen reader access to the main navigation and drop-down items.

I sent out a request asking people to suggest drop down menus that I should look at. Many thanks Denis Boudreau, Rick Ellis, Thierry Koblentz, Chris Hoffman and Priti Rohra for their suggestions and advice. I would also like to thank Russ Weakley, Andrew Downie and Grant Focas for suggestions, menu testing and help in preparing this article.

My aim with this article is not to look at the technical side of how drop-downs are prepared; rather I am concerned with the user-experience for people who rely on the keyboard to access the web, with and without a screen reader.

It seems that there are three basic types of navigation systems which use drop-down menus:

1. Full tab, where the user tabs through the main navigation menu and all the drop-down options for each item.
2. Tab and arrow, where a combination of tab and arrow keys can be used to move between items in the main navigation menu and the drop-downs
3. Tab and enter, where the main navigation item is not a link and you can tab from main item to main item. When enter is selected on a main item the drop-down is presented and the tab key or arrow key is used to move between the choices.

Examples

The following four examples of different navigation menus with drop-downs can all be accessed with the keyboard and to varying degrees are likely to be accessible to screen reader users. The testing of these sites was done using browsers with JavaScript enabled. (NB: when I refer to using the tab key, this includes shift+tab for moving backwards.)

These examples were tested with the following system configurations: Windows XP and 7 using I.E. 8 and Firefox 3.6; Apple OSX with Safari 5.0 and Firefox 3.6. They were also tested using recent versions of the following screen readers JAWS, Window Eyes and NVDA. With some quirks and subtle differences, the screen readers all appear to behave reasonably consistently. 

1. Full tab

The Museum of East Anglia Life website has a main navigation menu with drop downs that can only be accessed by tabbing.

Keyboard only with Windows and Mac: With Win/IE8, Win/Firefox 3.6, Mac/ Safari 5 and Mac/Firefox 3.6, when you tab from one main item to the next, the drop-down menu for the item is presented and it is necessary to tab through all the links it contains in order to move to the next main item. The keyboard arrow keys do not work with either the main navigation or the drop-downs.

Keyboard with Screen reader: With the tab key you move through all the links, similar to above. However if you use the arrow keys, you can just go from main item to main items. It appears that when you use the arrow key to go to a main navigation item and then press the tab key the drop-down menu choices are presented and you can move through the options with either tab or arrow. The presence of sub-items and how to access them is not conveyed to the screen reader user.

2. Tab and arrow example 1

The Mozilla website has main navigation items that can be accessed with the tab key or the arrow keys.

Keyboard only with Windows and Mac: With Win/IE8, Win/Firefox 3.6, Mac/ Safari 5 and Mac/Firefox 3.6, you can move between the main navigation items using either the tab key or the left/right arrow keys. When on a main navigation item, pressing the down arrow key opens the drop-down and you can use the up/down arrow keys or the tab key to move through the drop-down choices.

Keyboard with screen reader: With the screen readers it was not possible to use the arrow keys to open and use the drop-down menu. However, pressing enter on each main navigation item took the user to the relevant section landing page. If the screen reader user decides to abandon normal behaviour and try the menu with the Virtual Cursor turned off (insert+z with JAWS), the arrow key will cause the content of the drop down menu to be presented. But with JAWS the items are read out as a continuous list so it is virtually impossible to make a specific choice from a menu.

3. Tab and arrow example 2

This example for Yahoo Developers also allows the user to use the tab or arrow keys to move between main navigation items, however the selection of drop-down menu choices appears to be different.

Keyboard only with Windows and Mac: With Win/IE8, Win/Firefox 3.6, Mac/ Safari 5 and Mac/Firefox 3.6, you can tab from main navigation item to main item and when you press the down arrow the drop-down is presented. If you move from main item to main item with the left/right arrow keys each main navigation item is presented with the drop-down open. You use either the tab key or the up/down arrow keys to move through the drop-down options.

Keyboard with screen reader: The screen reader provides no indication to the user that there is a drop-down or how to access it and without any indication many screen reader users a likely to keep pressing the enter key in the hope of something happening. If the “virtual cursor” is turned off, when you press the down arrow key, the menu is reported but as you move down the drop-down items, with JAWS at least, the screen reader also reads content from the page directly after each item. However, if you use the down arrow to open the menu and then tab through the items just the drop-down items are reported. Yahoo “Communication” drop-down menu contains an item, PIM, which can be expanded to present third level items by pressing the right arrow, but again there is no indication that this item can be expanded or how to do it.

4. Tab and enter

With some sites, the main navigation item is not a link and the drop down menu for each item is accessed by pressing the enter key. It should be noted, that in this example from TJK Design, it appears that “Articles: E-K” page is the active page.

Keyboard only with Windows and Mac: With Win/IE8, Win/Firefox 3.6, Mac/ Safari 5 and Mac/Firefox 3.6, you tab from main navigation item to main item, but the main navigation items are not links to the landing page for each section. When focus is on a main item, pressing the enter key opens the drop-down menu, which can then only be accessed with the tab key. However, when tabbing through the main navigation items, the drop-down menu of the current page is presented when you tab to the main navigation item for that page. You can then use the tab key to move through the drop-down options related to this section.

Keyboard with screen reader: Keyboard access appears to function in the same way as described above, with the screen reader reporting each item as you tab to it and when you tab to the main navigation item for the active page the drop-down opens and you can move through the options, but in this case with either tab key or the arrow keys. For main navigation items relating to pages that are not the active page, pressing enter will open the menu and then you can move through the menu with either the tab or arrow, but tab seems a little easier to use.

Conclusion

After reviewing these menus, I have a far better understanding of why most of the people I know who rely on the keyboard to use the web have a pretty negative impression of drop-downs. Without a mouse, they are difficult to use and it appears that you can not expect them to perform in a consistent fashion.

It is hard to make a definitive statement about which drop-downs are likely to be the most accessible, in part because I think it will depend on the particular circumstances of each site. For example, a site with very few main navigation items and only a few drop-down options is not likely to present a big problem for someone who has to tab through all of them. On the other hand, if the main navigation and drop-downs contains hundreds of links, tabbing through all them could be a serious problem for some people.

From this limited testing, it seems to me that the usability and accessibility of drop-downs for screen reader users and for other people who rely on the keyboard to access the web would be significantly improved if there was a generally agreed (standard) behaviour for drop-downs and information about how to use them without a mouse was available to all users. I think these are the two key issues associated with the use of drop-downs and I would be very interested to know what other people think.

Which is better and why?

1. Is it better to rely on just the tab key rather than a combination of tab and arrow?
2. If we do rely just on the tab key, is it better to force keyboard users to tab though all the drop-down options? Or should you allow keyboard users to only tab from main item to main item, for example, and then they make the next level of choices on the section landing pages?
3. If a combination of tab and arrow keys is the way to go, what is the best approach? And, how many keyboard users would even think of using the arrow keys? Not many I suspect, so what is the best way of informing them?

Please note: This is not intended to be a complete list of all possible accessibility problems and the order of the items is of no significance. For full details about WCAG 2.0 go to the “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines” W3C Recommendation 11 December 2008.

Page content

1. Failure to include text alternatives for images
2. Use of CAPTCHA
3. Failure to provide adequate alternatives for other inaccessible content
4. Failure to use HTML header elements appropriately
5. Failure to explicitly associate form inputs with their labels (or use the input title attribute)
6. Failure to ensure sufficient difference between foreground (text) colour and background colour
7. Failure to identify data tables with Summary or Caption
8. Failure to mark-up data tables correctly
9. Failure to ensure sites can be used without the mouse
10. Use of onChange event handlers with select menus

1. Failure to include text alternatives for images

The need to provide equivalent text alternatives for all non-text content is the first accessibility requirement of WCAG 2.
1.1.1 Non-text content: All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose (except for a few specified situations). (Level A)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.1.1

In practice, this Success Criterion most often relates to the use of the image alt attribute for images that are necessary to understand and/or use a site and a null or empty alt (alt=”") for images that are used for layout or decorative purposes.

1.1: Selected Sufficient Techniques

A: If short description can serve the same purpose and present the same information:

• Use alt attributes on img elements (Technique H37)

B: If a short description can not serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content (e.g. a chart or diagram):

• Provide short text alternatives (e.g. alt attribute) AND one of the following techniques for the long description:
• Long description for non-text content using longdesc (Technique G92).
• Long description in text near the non-text content (Technique G74).
• Long description in another location with a link to it that is immediately adjacent to the non-text content (Technique G73).

1.2: Note on use of CSS background images

CSS background images should not be used for important items like navigation elements or headings since they will not be displayed when a site is accessed with a device that is unable to display images. Use of background images in this way is a recognised WCAG 2 failure.

• Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information (Failure F3).

2. Use of CAPTCHA

CAPTCHA stands for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart”.

The most common example of CAPTCHA is distorted images of text used as part of a login or registration process. Since this form of CAPTCHA uses randomly generated images without text alternatives they are inherently inaccessible to screen reader users and other people who are unable to access images on the page.

The need to provide an alternative for CAPTCHA is one of the specific exceptions in Success Criteria 1.1.1
1.1.1 Non-text content: All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose (except for a few specified situations). (Level A)

2.1: Selected Sufficient Techniques

When non-text content is a CAPTCHA, two things need to be done:

• Provide a text alternative (e.g. image alt attribute) that describes the purpose of the CAPTCHA (Technique G143).

AND

• Ensure the Web Page contains another CAPTCHA with the same purpose using a different modality (Technique G144). Very often the other modality is audio, but the audio should be discernable and understandable by general web users (i.e. not too distorted).

3. Failure to provide adequate alternative for other inaccessible content

Many websites use proprietary (non-W3C) formats which may not be accessible. PDF and Flash are two commonly used formats that can cause problems for screen reader users.

When PDF and Flash content is prepared well it can be accessible to many assistive technology users, but since some assistive technologies may not be able to access even well made PDF and Flash material it is advisable to provide an accessible HTML alternative.

Web content producers should make PDF and Flash material as accessible as possible because assistive technology support for these formats is improving all the time and it is expected that well made material will be accessible to nearly all assistive technology users in the near future.

At this time, some jurisdictions do not consider PDF and/or Flash to be “accessibility-supported” technologies. For example in Australia, various government authorities stipulate an accessible alternative needs to be provided for PDF material.

There is a lot of advice on the web to help developers make accessible PDF material. A good starting point is the Adobe article “Workflow for creating Accessible PDFs“.

The W3C Techniques document contains a large number of techniques for improving the accessibility of Flash material (Flash Techniques for WCAG 2.0). There are detailed descriptions and examples for each technique.

4. Failure to use HTML Header elements appropriately

The ‘h1′ header element should be used for the main heading(s) of the page. Subsequent headers (h2, h3 etc) should be used to identify and present different sections and sub-sections of the page.
1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text. (Level A)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1

The failure to use header elements appropriately reduces the accessibility of sites since it makes it hard for screen reader users to understand the structure of information presented on the page. Appropriate header elements also allow screen reader users to easily navigate to different sections of the page.

4.1: Sufficient Technique

• Using H1-H6 to identify headings (Technique H42)

5. Failure to explicitly associate form inputs with their labels (or use the input title attribute)

Screen reader users, and others who are unable to perceive the visual presentation of the information on the page, need to be able to identify the purpose of form inputs (controls).

With most HTML forms, the aim or purpose of each input is identified with a text label that is presented using the HTML “label” element with a “for” attribute that has the same value as the “id” attribute for the associated input. The use of matching attributes enables screen readers to associate the label with the input. Each “id” attribute should be unique.

When it is not possible to provide an explicitly associated label, WCAG 2.0 allows the input title attribute to be used to identify the aim or purpose of the input.

5.1: Sufficient Techniques

• Using label elements to associate text labels with form controls (Technique H44)
• Using the title attribute to identify form controls when the label element cannot be used (Technique H65)

6. Failure to ensure sufficient difference between foreground (text) colour and background colour

There are two Success Criteria relating to the colour contrast ratio between foreground (text) and background colours, one at Level AA and the other at Level AAA. And, unlike WCAG 1.0 exceptions are made for differences in text size and the purpose of the text.
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following: (Level AA)

• Large Text: Large-scale text and images of large-scale text have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1;
• Incidental: Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or that are part of a picture that contains significant other visual content, have no contrast requirement.
• Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no contrast requirement.

(Success Criteria 1.4.5 Contrast (Enhanced), which is at Level AAA, requires a contrast ratio of 7:1 and 4.5:1 for large-scale text)

6.1: Sufficient Techniques for S.C. 1.4.3

A: text is less than 18 point if not bold and less than 14 point if bold

• Ensuring that a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 exists between text (and images of text) and background behind the text (Technique G18).
• Not specifying background color, not specifying text color, and not using technology features that change those defaults (Technique G148).
• Providing a control with a sufficient contrast ratio that allows users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast (Technique G174).

B: text is as least 18 point if not bold and at least 14 point if bold

• Ensuring that a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 exists between text (and images of text) and background behind the text (Technique G145).
• Not specifying background color, not specifying text color, and not using technology features that change those defaults (Technique G148).
• Providing a control with a sufficient contrast ratio that allows users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast (Technique G174).

6.2: Note on the use of CSS to provide a background colour

The use of a CSS image to provide background colour for navigation elements or headings can cause problems when the text colour is specified using CSS and no CSS background colour with sufficient contrast is provided for the text.

• Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.3, 1.4.6 and 1.4.8 due to specifying foreground colours without specifying background colours or vice versa (Failure F24).

7. Failure to identify data tables with Summary or Caption

WCAG 2.0 requires data tables to be presented in a way that allows the tables as a whole to be easily identified by assistive technologies.
1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text. (Level A)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 1.3.1

WCAG 2.0 suggests the “summary” attribute of the table element and/or the “caption” element can be used to identify data tables. The “summary” attribute is probably the more commonly used method. The content of the “summary” attribute is not displayed on the screen however it is read by screen readers. The “caption” element is displayed as the table heading, and is explicitly associated with the content of the table.

7.1 Sufficient Techniques

• Using caption elements to associate data table captions with data tables (Technique H39).
• Using the summary attribute of the table element to give an overview of data tables (Technique H73).

8. Failure to mark-up data tables correctly

Unlike WCAG 1.0, no distinction is made between ’simple’ and ‘complex’ data tables in WCAG 2.0. With all data tables, users need to be able to associate the information presented in each data cell with the relevant row and column headers.

With simple data tables, which have only one level of row and/or column headings, appropriate table markup is all that is required to allow screen reader users to access the information contained in the table. Appropriate markup for simple tables means using the TH element for the row and column headers and the TD element for the data cells.

However, screen readers can only access one level of row and/or column headers that use the TH element. With data tables that have more than one level of row and/or column headers it is necessary to also use the ID and HEADERS attributes and/or the SCOPE attribute.

Wherever possible, simple data tables should be used since they are easier to mark-up and most screen reader users find even well constructed complex data tables with multiple levels of headers, more difficult than simple tables to use.

8.1 Sufficient Techniques

• Using table markup to present tabular information (Technique H51)
• Using id and headers attributes to associate data cells with header cells in data tables (Technique H43)
• Using the scope attribute to associate header cells and data cells in data tables (Technique H63)

9. Failure to ensure sites can be used without the mouse

Not all web users are able to use a mouse so it is important to ensure site pages can also be used with the keyboard. There are two Success Criteria directly related to this issue:
2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user’s movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.1.1

2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component of the page using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, the user is advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 2.1.2

9.1 Selected Sufficient Techniques

• Ensuring keyboard control by using HTML form controls and links (Technique H91).
• Providing keyboard-triggered event handlers (Technique G90).
• Ensuring that users are not trapped in content (Technique G21).

10. Use of onChange event handlers with select menus

The use of JavaScript on websites is generally accessible since most assistive technologies can now support appropriately used JavaScript. However not all screen readers support all JavaScript “event handlers”, which trigger certain actions when an event occurs.

For scripts that do more than just change the visual appearance of an element, the W3C advises content developers to use event triggers that are device-independent, since many people with disabilities are unable to use a computer mouse.

Some web pages contain form inputs which present options in a drop-down menu that the user can select from. Those forms that use the “onChange” (device-dependent) event handler to trigger JavaScript functions based on a selection from within a ’select’ element can present accessibility problems for the users of keyboards and some other input devices.

10.1 Selected Sufficient Techniques

• Providing a submit button to initiate a change of context (Technique G80) by using submit buttons (Technique H32).

See also:

• Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.2 due to launching a new window without prior warning when the status of a radio button, check box or select list is changed (Failure F37).

Last Friday, Russ Weakley and I visited an old friend, David Woodbridge in Gosford, an hour’s drive north of Sydney on the freeway through sheeting rain. David is a senior consultant for Vision Australia and spends part of his time testing and evaluating adaptive technologies. Formally a dedicated JAWS user, David is now an Apple VoiceOver evangelist. Russ and I were keen to see how David uses VoiceOver with his Macbook Pro and make a video of him using it with the iPhone and iPad.

In the past, many people in the blind community and accessibility advocates, myself included, generally felt that VoiceOver did not have the necessary features to be considered a viable alternative for established screen readers like JAWS and Window Eyes. Today, it appears that VoiceOver is an effective and easy to use screen reader, although it seems that it may take people who are used to the more commonly used screen readers a little time to get use to.

I feel VoiceOver, which is built into the Apple operating system, and NVDA, a Windows screen reader that is available at no cost, now provide screen reader users with real alternatives. And in the process, they will hopefully put pressure on the manufacturers of other, relatively expensive, screen readers to lift their game.

In making the following video, many thanks to David for his knowledge, time and patience, and to Russ for operating the second camera, which provided the essential close-up shots of the devices.

The video is captioned in English and open for translation into other languages if you so wish. A transcript of the video is provided after the video player.

Video Transcript

MAIN TITLE: iPHONE, iPAD and Apple VoiceOver

DAVID: Hi my name is David Woodbridge and I am the senior adaptive technology consultant at Vision Australia. I’m part of the equipment solutions team and my job is to do the adaptive technology help desk. I’m one of the people that do that, and also research and evaluate products, including Apple products. And, one of the exciting things last year was the iPhone 3GS because it actually has all the universal access options built into it. So basically you’ve got a screen reader which is the VoiceOver program on the Mac, it’s now on the iPhone. You’ve go Zoom, the large print software and you’ve got Black on White.

A really cool thing about VoiceOver, especially on iPhone,particularly for sighted people that want to help blind or low vision people out is that under Settings, General Accessibility. What you can actually do is associate the Home button with turning VoiceOver,in my case, on or off. So, if just press my Home button three times [PRESSES HOME BUTTON ON iPHONE THREE TIMES].

iPHONE: VoiceOver off.

DAVID: Now my iPhone is a perfectly standard iPhone so if I need sighted assistance for something they can do it with standard gestures. And then, one, two, three [PRESSES HOME BUTTON]

iPHONE: VoiceOver on.

DAVID: And I’ve got myself an accessible iPhone again. And, basically what happens with VoiceOver, is when you touch the screen [MOVES FINGER ACROSS iPHONE SCREEN]

iPHONE: Clock, maps, photos, calendar …

DAVID: It actually reads out what’s happening. Now some people say, well look that’s okay because you are used to it, but how do you know where things are? What you can actually do with VoiceOver is you can actually do a left finger flick to the left or a right finger flick to the right [FLICKS FINGERS LEFT AND RIGHT ACROSS THE SURFACE OF THE SCREEN].

iPHONE: Weather, Voice memo, notes … [PHONE CONTINUES READING WITH FINGER FLICKS AS DAVID TALKS]

DAVID: And you can move item by item so you’ve got total control over where you are. Now the other really good thing about the screen as far as the screen reader is concerned is that if I take my finger to the top of the iPhone and bring it down slightly [MOVES FINGER DOWN ONTO THE TOP OF THE PHONE SCREEN]

iPHONE: Twelve forty one p.m.

DAVID: I’m now on my status line so I can read all the information about the status of what the phone is doing. So if I flick to the left [LEFT FINGER FLICK]

iPHONE: 67% WiFi, signal. Optus network two bars …

DAVID: Two bars [FLICKS TO RIGHT] and to the right …

iPHONE: Status, 31% battery power.

DAVID: 31% battery power. And I can now just take my finger down to the rest of the screen and I’m back on the main iPhone screen itself. Down the bottom, where you’ve got all your apps that you like to access all the time.

iPHONE: Phone

DAVID: I normally use my home button as an orientation point, so I come down here, go to the left, go up a little bit. [SLIDES FINGER TO BOTTOM AND UP A LITTLE]

iPHONE: Phone

DAVID: So I’ve got Phone to make phone calls [FLICKS RIGHT AND LEFT]

iPHONE: Phone, mail - 95 new items.

DAVID: Mail with 95 new items. Flick to the right again …

iPHONE: safari

DAVID: Safari

iPHONE: ipod

DAVID: and the ipod. But, with the release recently of the ipad the accessibility for the VoiceOver application, in my case, has actually got even more spectacular. And, I’ll just mention one particular feature which really gets me excited. At the moment, if I say bring up my Spotlight search for the iPhone … [iPHONE voice] and I touch my qwerty keyboard [PRESSES KEYBOARD LETTER]

iPHONE: G

DAVID: Ok so I am finding my letters [MOVES FINGER ACROSS KEYBOARD]

iPHONE: G, R, E

DAVID: Now, to put a letter in I normally have to double tap with one finger to put the letter in. So it’s almost a three sequence: Find the letter,

iPHONE: A, G

DAVID: Double tap with one finger

iPHONE: G

DAVID: it puts it in the search. What they’ve actually done with the iPad … [PUTS DOWN iPHONE, MOVES HAND TO iPAD] is if I bring up my search [TURNS iPAD ON]

iPAD: Search iPad, search field …

DAVID: And I touch my keyboard

iPAD: Auto-cap keyboard, capital

DAVID: First thing it says is keyboard so I know I am on the keyboard, second thing it says is, if, I hold my finger down on the screen long enough, it says the phonetic of the character, so …[HOLDS FINGER STILL ON KEYPAD]

iPAD: Capital F, foxtrot.

DAVID: F, foxtrot [MOVES FINGERS ON KEYPAD]

iPAD: Capital T, tango

DAVID: And so on. But the really cool thing is when I find the letter I want [MOVES FINGER ACROSS KEYPAD]

iPAD: Cap, cap, capital G [LIFTS FINGERS - SCREEN CHANGES]

DAVID: Take it off, take my fingers off the screen and it puts the character in straight away. So your accessibility has just increased phenomenally because I’m not having to find the character,double tap it, I just find the character take my finger off and hey presto its going.[PRESSES HOME BUTTON] To come back to the main home screen with the home button. And again I’ve got the same thing that I can do with the iPhone. [PRESSES HOME BUTTON THREE TIMES] I can do one, two, three.

iPAD: VoiceOver off.

DAVID: VoiceOver off. Use it normally. Back on again, one, two three.[PRESSES HOME BUTTON]

iPAD: Voiceover on.

DAVID: And we have got the status line. And what Apple have done this time with the status window is, if I come down from the top [SLIDES FINGER DOWN SCREEN]

iPAD: BEEP SOUND FX, contacts, BEEP, 12.44 p.m.

DAVID: It gives me a bleep when I hit the status area and [MOVES FINGERS DOWN SCREEN] and I can do the same thing, flick left and right [FLICKS FINGERS OVER SCREEN]

iPAD: 39% battery …

DAVID: And if I come down to the dock. I drag my finger down to the dock. [SLIDES FINGER DOWN SCREEN]

iPAD: BEEP, BEEP, dock. Mail forty new items.

DAVID: It gives a double beep, plus it actually says dock. Another really exciting feature of VoiceOver on the iPad is when I am using the iPhone [PICKS UP iPHONE] and I flip it [ROTATES PHONE IN HIS HANDS] to landscape or its upside down VoiceOver actually doesn’t tell me that I am actually moving it. But what the iPad does [PUTS PHONE DOWN NEXT TO iPAD] is that, I’ve currently got this in landscape mode [PUTS HANDS ON iPAD] and at the moment I physically know where my Home button is because I can feel it on the left hand side of the screen. [PICKS UP iPAD] But if I actually rotate my iPAD [ROTATES iPAD BY 90 DEGREES]

iPAD: Portrait

DAVID: OK, so I am now in portrait mode and I know from experience my Home button is always on the bottom. But, if I now flip it to the left …[ROTATES iPAD BY 90 DEGREES]

iPAD: Landscape, Home button to the right.

DAVID: It tells me Home button’s now to the right, so I know exactly where my Home button is and I can go straight to it without any problems at all. If I do a flick to upside down [ROTATES iPAD]

iPAD: Portrait flipped.

DAVID: Portrait flipped, and again I know my Home button is exactly at the top of the screen up here. And if we do another flick [ROTATES THROUGH 90 DEGEES RETURNING TO ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE VIEW]

iPAD: Landscape, home button to the left.

DAVID: Home button to the left and I can put my finger right on it. And just one finally thing I want to show people, because this is the thing that always gets people confused. They say, look I’m pressing the [BEEP SOUNDS] volume up button, and I’m pressing the volume down button, [BEEP SOUNDS] but when I actually go back to my speech [FLICKS ACROSS SCREEN WITH FINGERS]

iPAD: Help, contact, notes …

DAVID: It’s the same volume. So the trick is … [PUTS iPAD ON TABLE] You actually start the screen reader reading and then the volume up and volume down button actually then controls the screen reader voice. So if I do a two finger flick down the screen to start it reading.

iPAD: Calendar, contacts [CONTINUES READING WHILE DAVID TALKS AND CHANGES VOLUME LEVEL]

DAVID: And now when I do it [PRESSES VOLUME BUTTON - iPAD VOLUME DECREASES]

iPAD: Settings, photos, page one of two …

DAVID: Volume’s going down, and back up again [VOLUME INCREASES] And I can do a two finger touch on the screen to stop it talking. So that’s basically VoiceOver on the iPad [PUTS iPAD DOWN ON TABLE]

DAVID: When I’m actually doing web browsing. [MOVES FINGER ALONG DOCK SECTION]

iPAD: Safari - SOUND FX

DAVID: Just quickly …

iPAD: Safari, Apple

DAVID: The way that gestures work on the iPhone and the iPad, besides basically moving your fingers around the screen, one finger, double tapping, there’s actually a system called the Web Rotor. [FINGERS OVER iPAD SCREEN] If I do a two finger rotate … [TWIST/ROTATE TWO FINGERS ON SCREEN]

iPAD: Links

DAVID: I can rotate between different elements on the screen. So, I can do links … [ROTATE FINGERS]

iPAD: Form controls

DAVID: Form controls …. [ROTATE FINGERS]

iPAD: Visited links.

DAVID: And then when I want to move on one of those elements, so let’s go back to links. [ROTATES FINGERS]

iPAD: Form controls, [ROTATE] Links

DAVID: When I flick up and down with one finger [FINGER FLICKS OVER SCREEN]

iPAD: Apple, Store, Mac, iPod ….

DAVID: I’m actually moving up and down the following. And of course, when I get to the one I want to get to, I can double tap. Now the similar gestures for the iPhone and the iPad are exactly the same commands that I would be using with VoiceOver on the multi-touch trackpad on a Macbook Pro. So, once you’ve got a Macbook, an iPhone or and iPad you know how to use the gestures in the whole three systems.

DAVID: [C.U. iPHONE] Okay to finish off, I think I might make a phone call because the iPhone does actually have the ability to make phone calls. So, I am going to go to my phone app. [PRESSES SCREEN - SOUND FX] I’m going to find my keyboard …

iPHONE: Contacts, keypad, keypad, selected.

DAVID: And to speed things up I going to use one finger to find the number, and while my finger is on the screen I’m going to use my second finger to complete the double tap sequence. [ONE FINGER MOVES OVER SCREEN TO LOCATE NUMBER. OTHER FINGER TAPS TOP OF SCREEN]

iPHONE: Nine, nine, three, three, three, [iPHONE FINGER MOVES AND TAPS] four, four, three, three, three, three.

DAVID: And, if I zip down the bottom of the screen.

iPHONE: Seven, star, zero.

DAVID: Find zero, come right down.

iPHONE: Call button.

DAVID: And, if I did a double tap now I would actually make a phone call to Vision Australia.

FADE OUT

With a macho daring clearly in excess of his skill and judgement, Elliott Price raced past his wife and out on his own. He approached a slight undulation in the snow’s surface, and, since he was in the sight of no-one, decided to attempt a small jump. In mid-air, Elliott realised that the drop on the other side of the mound was considerably more than he expected.

The snow at the bottom of the precipice was powder soft, and although Elliott Price landed with considerable grace, he sank into the snow until he was totally engulfed by white, leaving no sign of his passage on the surface.

The Merlin Freezer in the “Thomas Delicatessen and Fine Foods” roared, the motor thumped against the floor, and the cans and bottles on the shop shelves began to rattle and clink.

Sir Murray St Clair, sitting alone in his large, modern house overlooking Sydney harbour, watched the evening television news, glass of champagne in hand. During a report on the cricket test between England and India, Sir Murray poured the last of the champagne into his glass. Sir Murray shook his head in disgust as the reporter wrapped up the day’s play, “And so, after England lost the last six wickets for just thirty seven runs, India won the first test by one hundred and three with half a day to spare“.

Sir Murray drained his glass and stood up, a little unsteady on his feet. The sports report and images on the television changed to the State Rowing Championships as the presenter announced, “There was a major upset at the State Rowing Titles today when Tanya Macquarie edged out Olympic Games medallist, Monica Wentworth, to win the Senior Singles Sculls final.”

“Good God! Women rowing, whatever next! Enough to drive a man to drink,” Sir Murray said with a chuckle before stumbling out of the room in search of some more champagne.

In the small kitchen behind the Thomas Deli, the atmosphere was one of euphoric relief. The Thomases, their neighbour Sky Crystal, Ruth and her father, as well as the rowing coach Steve and the two boys from the club were packed into the room. Dean called for quiet as the television sport switched to the State rowing finals. Footage of Ruth and Jane appeared on the screen and the group moved closer to the small television perched precariously on top of the microwave.

“The finals of the Junior Women’s Pair provided the most exciting race of the day and another surprise result,” the sports journalist enthusiastically declared to woops of delight from all in the room. “After a terrible start, former singles champion Ruth Goldsmith and her partner Jane Thomas managed to fight their way back into the race and snatch victory from the favourites and current Commonwealth junior champions in the last few metres of the race.” The room erupted in cheers.

On the other side of the harbour, Sir Murray St Clair staggered down to the basement and lent against the heavy door to the cool room in his wine cellar. Next to the door was an electronic keypad pad which controlled access to the room and the chilled wine it contained. Experience derived from many trips to the cool room had taught Sir Murray that he was unlikely to remember the high-strength entry code that the security experts had insisted on. He always kept a copy of the code in his wallet which he retrieved and put on top of the keypad. With the wallet back in his jacket pocket, Sir Murray laboriously pushed each number on the keypad after reading it on the card.

The lock clicked. St Clair pulled the door open, flicked on the light and walked inside. It was cold and he shivered involuntarily as the door swung closed behind him.

Abraham Goldsmith and Coach Steve were standing next to the now muted television in the Thomas kitchen reliving the last anxious few moments of the race when Dean Thomas re-joined them with fresh drinks. Dean lent forward to turn off the television, but froze when the words ‘Ocean Classic Yacht Missing‘ and a picture of Ray Purvis appeared on the screen.

“Quiet everyone,” Dean shouted. “Let’s have some hush!”

The room fell silent as Dean turned up the television volume in time to catch the end of the story. “Business entrepreneur and head of Purvis Holdings, Ray Purvis, is missing after his yacht Hotshot was hit by a whale late this afternoon during the RBT Ocean Classic. The yacht is reported to have sunk without a trace. There are unconfirmed reports that most of the crew have been rescued by another nearby yacht, but the fate of Mr Purvis is unknown.”

Suddenly, a series of loud mechanical clanks and thumps was heard coming from the adjoining room containing the Thomas deli. Dean rushed to the door, followed by his wife and daughter.

With a fresh bottle of Moet under his arm, Sir Murray St Clair walked across to the cool room in his wine cellar and pushed the door. The heavy door refused to budge. St Clair shivered and put down the bottle. “Did the temperature of the room suddenly fall, or was it just my imagination,” St Clair said to himself as he opened his wallet.

The card with the code for the cool room door keypad was not where it should be. One after another, the contents of the St Clair wallet fell to the floor as he looked for the missing card.

With growing terror, Sir Murray searched his pockets for the keypad code. The room was definitely colder. The thermostat that registered the temperature of the room fell to negative numbers as Sir Murray St Clair stabbed at random numbers on the keypad with increasing urgency.

Inside the ‘Thomas Delicatessen and Fine Foods’ shop, the Merlin Freezer was barely visible through the cloud of mist and smoke that surrounded it. The motor, its energy now dissipated, was making a tinny, wheezing sound, with a gentle thumping like a heart beat, getting progressively slower. Dean, Madge and Jane walked slowly up to the freezer as it gave a final shudder and the wheezing and thumping stopped.

Through the glass top of the Merlin the Thomas family saw the piece of paper with the names Price, Purvis and St Clair, which they had so deliberately put into the freezer just a few days earlier, now encased in a shimmering block of ice.

The End

There is no next episode this time. I hope you have enjoyed reading Freezer and I am sorry it took longer than I expected to write all the episodes.

I would love to hear what you thought about the story so if you have the time please send me an email on rhudson@usability.com.au

Following my talk at the CSUN conference in March 2010, several people have asked me to make available the slides. They also asked if it would be possible to get a transcript since many of the slides just contain a few words to highlight what I was saying.

SUMMARY

My presentation was primarily concerned with whether or not the way we have encouraged/required the development of accessible sites in the past has been successful, and how we might improve the accessibility of the web in the future.

Rather than complaining about the possible failings of past, I believe after a decade of accessibility rules it is time explore options for the future: We need to enhance the acceptance of accessibility guidelines; raise the overall awareness of the need for improved web content accessibility; address the cost of access to information for assistive technology users; and, improve the ability of people with disabilities to use assistive technologies and standard user agents like browsers.

In the real world, most people now accept that the needs of people with disabilities should be accommodated in public transport and building design. When it comes to the web however, I am concerned that many still view accessibility through the lens of charity and not rights. Too often the needs of people with disabilities who use the web are dismissed and web site accessibility is considered an add-on, something to be done only when time and money permit. Rules alone are not enough. Attitudes and behaviour both also need to change.

SPEAKERS NOTES

I don’t have a verbatim transcript of the presentation; however my talk kept close to the following quite extensive speaker’s notes. Sorry there are so many words, but I can say a lot in 50 minutes.

SLIDE 1:
Many thanks for coming to this presentation.

We have had rules and laws relating to the accessibility of websites for about ten years. During this session I plan to look at the role they have played in encouraging, or requiring, developers and their clients to consider accessibility when developing sites.

While I will be talking in part about WCAG 2.0, I don’t propose to go over the POUR principals. I think we are all pretty familiar with them by now. Rather, I hope to highlight a few potential areas of concern and make a few suggestions for the future.

SLIDE 2:
There is a tendency to consider website accessibility primarily from the perspective of people with impaired vision. In particular, accessibility is often equated with how well a site and the information it contains can be accessed by someone who relies on a screen reader.

But of course, as we all know there are many other forms of disability and what works well with a screen reader may not always meet the needs of people with other disabilities.

SLIDE 3:
But first, to get a snap shot of the extent of different disabilities I have turned to the Disability, Ageing and Careers survey which the Australian Bureau of Statistics undertakes every five or so years. For this survey, a disability is defined as something that restricts one or more core activities, such as self-care, mobility and communication.

This Disability Survey found that about a third of the respondents indicated their disability related to sight, this amounts to about 7% of the total population. The degree of sight impairment is very varied, and by no means do all these people rely on assistive technologies such as screen readers or magnifiers to use the web.

The next largest category is physical with about 20% of the respondents, followed by hearing with 11%.

For a variety of reasons it appears that surveys like this under report the number of people with cognitive disabilities and learning disorders.

SLIDE 4:
So how many people have a cognitive or learning disorder?

Work done in 1999 by Jaye Johnson and Edith Cowen university in Western Australia provides some answers. Johnson surveyed year 12 students (the final year before Tertiary education) and found that intellectual disabilities, which included learning disorder, were by far the highest proportion of disabilities.

9% of students with disabilities reported visual loss as their major disability. Whereas, when we combine Intellectual disability and autism we get a figure of nearly 60%.

SLIDE 5:
Also, research by the Australian Learning Disabilities Association suggests that about 10 to 12% of the population of Australia have a learning disability, with 4% being severely affected.

I have made this brief mention of cognitive and learning disorders because even though it probably comprises the largest number of people with disabilities in our community they are often overlooked.

And, in my view there are not given sufficient consideration in Version 2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

SLIDE 6:
During the last decade or so one of the most significant shifts in terms of accessibility has been the move from what could be basically described as a charity model, where favours are dispensed to those in needs, to the notion of social inclusion.

What do I mean by social inclusion?

In short, it is about having a society where all people feel valued, their differences are respected, and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity. In essence, the opposite of exclusion, which sees people excluded from participating fully in the social, economic and cultural life of a community as a result of their difference, be it income, race, gender or abilities.

Although we like to rejoice in the notion that all ‘men are created equal with inalienable rights’, this hasn’t always been the case.

Let us not forget, not 200 years ago there was slavery in so called “civilised” countries like the US, the UK and yes Australia; a hundred years ago women didn’t have the right to vote; and just 50 years ago the Aboriginal people of Australia were not counted in the census and basically had no rights at all, including the freedom to move around the country and live where they wished.

So what is the point of this polemic rave you might be thinking?

In the real world, most of us no longer think that it is all right to own slaves or the right to vote, own property or move to another city should depend on a person’s gender or racial origin.

Similarly, I believe most people now accept that the needs of people with disabilities should be accommodated in public transport and building design. And, there is increasing awareness of the abilities of those who were often stigmatised as disabled in the past. There is a growing recognition of the distinct cultural and linguistic identity of the Deaf community, and a far greater appreciation of the special talents of many people with cognitive disabilities.

When it comes to the web however, I am concerned that many still view accessibility through the lens of charity and not rights. Too often the needs of people with disabilities who use the web are dismissed and web site accessibility is considered an add-on, something to be done only when time and money permit. Consequently, while rules prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities are important, what I feel we fundamentally need are changes in attitude. I go into these ideas in more detail in the article “Social Inclusion and the Web” on my Blog

SLIDE 7:
A little more than 10 years ago the W3C introduced Version 1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Australia, along with a number of other countries, now has laws that require websites to not discriminate against people with disabilities. In many cases, these regulations use the WCAG checkpoints as the benchmark for accessibility.

At about the same time, the US Access Board released the 1194 Web Standards that relate to amendments to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These Standards, along with the American with Disabilities Act and other Federal and State laws underpin the requirement for website accessibility in the US.

There is not a whole lot of difference between the Guidelines of WCAG 1.0, and the Standards of Section 508. Both focus primarily on using W3C technologies such as HTML appropriately. Section 508 however does make provision for the use of JavaScript, applets and other non-W3C formats.

Another significant difference between the situation in the US and that in Australia is that 508 relates to the procurement and use of information technologies by Federal Agencies, while in Australia there is no requirement for agencies to consider accessibility when purchasing products like Content Management Systems or authoring tools.

SLIDE 8:
The web has moved on a lot in the last 10 years, I don’t the remember details of what we were using the web for back in 1999, but a quick look at the most visited sites by Americans and Australians today gives us a bit of an idea what we are doing now.

SLIDE 9:
It’s hard to find reliable data about web usage, but I think the information provided by a company called Alexa probably provides a pretty good indication.

This list indicates how many of the top 100 most visited sites in Australia and the US are in different categories, like social networking, search and let us not forget porn. The largest category, are those sites concerned with the I.T. and Web industry, followed by social networking and then search. The number of porn sites was far few than I would have thought, perhaps because these sites and their users are good at covering their tracks.

I guess it would come as no surprise to hear that Google is the most visited site now.

SLIDE 10:
The Nielsen company recently compiled a list of the 100 most visited sites in January this year, and the results are much the same as those from Alexa.

This Treemap of the top 100 sites prepared by the BBC represents the Nielsen data. The largest categories being: Search, Media, Retail, Software and Social Network including video, blogs etc

For me, this information about web usage today highlights a few interesting things:

• Our huge reliance on search sites and tools for locating resources on the web,
• The explosion of social networking and sharing sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube.
• Also, the amount of buying and selling that is going online today. Many sites now have an online payment system. And during the last 10 years ebay has grown from a small US business with a few employees and to a massive global enterprise with over 15 thousand workers.

SLIDE 11:
So, a lot more people are using the web for many more reasons than they did back at the start of the millennium. But, have than ten years of accessibility rules and regulations improved the overall accessibility of content on the web.

Anecdotally it seems that it is better, and when you look at specific sites it is often easy to seem improvement. But overall, is the content of the web more accessible? I don’t know, I still see many crummy sites.

When preparing this talk, I did a quick check of the accessibility of the most visited sites in Australia and the US.

SLIDE 12:
These are the seven most visited sites in Australia according to Alexa. No real surprises here: Google number one, followed by facebook and Youtube. Ebay comes in at 6 followed by NineMSN, a less than perfect site when it comes to accessibility.

I used the WAVE tool to test the home page and a couple of other pages from each site. I know using an automated tool to test just a few pages is a rather crude measure of accessibility, but it was quick.

As you can see, WAVE identified accessibility errors on all home pages, except for the Bing page. NineMSN was the worst, with 52 errors on the home page according to WAVE.

Also the home pages of all seven sites use JavaScript in some way or other. And at least 5 of the sites contain some non W3C content, usually Flash.

SLIDE 13:
Here are the results for the 7 most visited US sites.

Not really much different to what we saw with the Australian sites although a little more in the area of social networkings with both Facebook and Myspace making the top seven. Again, WAVE identified accessibility errors on most home pages and all the sites have JavaScript and nearly all contain some non-W3C content.

SLIDE 14:
Vegemite!

For those not familiar with this Australian delicacy: It’s a salty spread made from used brewer’s yeast that we all grew up on. According to the ads, it gave us vitality and could even solve teenage problems.

The true test of being an Australian is to be able to sing the vegemite song for “we love our vegemite, we all enjoy our vegemite, it puts a rose in every cheek.”

But even vegemite had to move with times.

SLIDE 15:
Don’t you just love the way everything is 2.0 nowadays.

As well as the “2.0” suffix, vegemite even managed to slip in the “i” prefix.

iSnack 2.0, a ‘great’ idea by Vegemite to show that “they get it”, if I might borrow an oft used phrase of the cool set.

SLIDE 16:
Even Government is going 2.0.

During the last year or so, the US and Australian governments, along with many others, have organised studies, camps and

taskforces to explore ways of using the new social networking and interactive web technologies. The aims are often noble and lofty:

• To increase openness by making government information more widely available
• And to encourage more active collaboration from people wishing to contribute to public life.

But I am sure many in this room will not be surprised, when I suggest some of the sexy web 2.0 interactive stuff is not very accessible; and some of it downright inaccessible.

SLIDE 17:
How governments around the world balance the potential of web 2.0 with the reality of making sure that these new ways of engaging with the community are available to all will be interesting.

Sadly, I don’t feel the “Government 2.0 Taskforce” in Australia really came to grips with this question, perhaps this is not surprising since it seems that no one with specialist knowledge in the area of accessibility was on the Taskforce Committee.

The Report of the Taskforce contains a number of significant and far reaching recommendations in regard to promoting transparency and greater engagement with the community. However I feel the Taskforce and its Report present a very narrow, technology-centric view of what is required when it comes to the adoption of Web 2.0. The report seems to assume all citizens who may wish to engage with the government are able-bodied, web-savvy, can read English and are both willing and able to use social networking tools.

Rather than arguing the case for social inclusion; the Report is more concerned with canvassing the various excuses for not addressing the issue of making sure all people, including those with disabilities, will be able to engage in the proposed Government 2.0 world.

The Report goes so far as to Recommend that when it comes to web 2.0, Government agencies should not need to comply with accessibility guidelines if they find complying all too difficult. For me this is a real worry.

SLIDE 18:
When it comes to social policy, the success of regulations or rules largely depends on three factors:

1. The inherent justice or fairness of the rules
2. An acceptance by the social group that there is a need for regulations
3. And finally, willingness by the majority of those directly affected to comply with the regulations.

This willingness is often stimulated by incentives or sanctions. Or a combination of both - the so-called carrot and stick approach: Comply and you gain some form of explicit or implicit benefit; Fail to comply and you get whacked!

Over the years, I and other web accessibility advocates have offered the carrots of ‘doing the right thing‘, and the benefits of making sure your content is accessible to the largest number of people. At the same time, we have held out the stick of threatened prosecution for failing to comply.

But, as with most policies that require some change in behaviour, often at emotional and/or financial cost, the stick, while perhaps a useful adjunct in some circumstances, is often not a major determinant in changing human behaviour or attitudes.

SLIDE 19:
In 1901, Teddy Roosevelt helped himself to an old West African proverb, ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick‘, when it came to the exercise of political and judicial power. As many students of history will know, Roosevelt was able to use this approach with considerable effect in both local and international affairs.

However, I don’t think we could say this accurately reflects some more recent US approaches to international issues: Think of the George & Dick show, “Loud and big all the way”

Nor do I think it could be said to apply to legal attempts to enforce web accessibility in Australia and around the world.

SLIDE 20:
As far as I know, the first recorded case concerning website accessibility was in 2000 when Bruce Maguire complained that the site of the Sydney Olympic Games Organising Committee was not accessible. The case was successfully pursued by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and soon became a cause celebre of accessibility advocates everywhere.

During the following years, there have been a number of other complaints in different countries over the inaccessibility of websites. While the threat of legal action in some cases has resulted in negotiated positive outcomes for the complainants, very few complaints have made it to court.

Not withstanding the fact that little has been established in the way of legal precedents, I and many others have been shouting very loudly for years about disability discrimination laws and the risks of prosecution.

But sadly, it appears to me that the actual stick of legal action has turned out to be more of a twig. A twig that is very rarely wield in anger.

I don’t wish to suggest that the softly-softly approach has necessarily been inappropriate. As much as I might have liked to see the purveyors of large inaccessible sites get a whack, I suspect such an approach could well have been counter-productive and undermined our overall desire to improve the accessibility of the web.

SLIDE 21:
In Australia, and other jurisdictions, the processes for ensuring website accessibility rules are complied with are largely complaint driven. That is, someone has to feel that that have been sufficiently discriminated against to complain, and then the regulatory authorities have to agree to support their complaint.

In reality this doesn’t happen very often.

Many times when I have been evaluating the accessibility and usability of websites with people who have disabilities, the participants have commented on the inaccessibility of some site or other they recently tried to use. However, when I ask if they have complained about it to anyone, the answer is nearly always NO!

And, what happens when complaints are made? Regulators, who most often have limited financial resources, are then faced with the prospect of taking on what are often very large businesses with very deep pockets when it comes to protecting their reputation in court. And then there is the real prospect of the action failing, a catastrophic outcome that could establish precedents for inaccessibility rather than accessibility.

So what is the net result? In my opinion the process of enforcing web accessibility through regulations is very difficult because:

• First, many web developers and senior managers are not particularly sensitive to the issue of web accessibility.
• And second, since they see so many sites that are inaccessible, where the failure to comply is without consequence, they just basically don’t feel the pressure to take it seriously.

SLIDE 22:
Over the last ten years, the web has brought huge benefits to many people, including many with disabilities. However we are now in danger of having a web where the gap between the haves and the have nots could become a chasm.

A web, where increasingly all the fruits will only be available to the cool and able bodied! That is, those who can afford the latest technologies and have the physical and mental capabilities to use them.

A web where the basics will be available to all, but only some can travel first class.

SLIDE 23:
The WCAG 1.0 of 1999 is not able to meet the needs of the web today, with its enhanced interactivity, and most strikingly, greater community engagement:

• Social networking with Facebook and Youtube
• Social bookmarking with Delicious and Digg
• Tags and folksonomies, and
• How can we forget twitter

We’ve all heard and answered these clarion calls for narcissism. Nowadays, everybody feels they have something to say, and nothing is going to stop them. But not everyone can!

Is the inaccessibility of many of these fancy new tools, Web 2.0’s Nemesis, extracting vergence from a few for the interactive, narcissistic excesses of the many?

SLIDE 24:
The reality is that there are many more ways to present and interact with web content today than there was 10 years ago. And this number will only increase in the future.

WCAG 1.0 was primarily about W3C technologies, particularly HTML and its variants. This was in one sense a form of technological prohibition that confined our notions of accessibility.

While this confinement provided some certainty and encouraged the appropriate use of W3C technologies, it could not stop the development and use of other technologies and more importantly provided no incentive for people to improve the accessibility of content using these non-W3C technologies.

And, in some cases, these other technologies may be more appropriate than HTML.

SLIDE 25:
A friend of mine, Judith has cerebral palsy; some of you may have seen her in the video “Wheeling in Second Life” which we made together a few years ago. Judith is unable to use her hands to control a mouse or use the keyboard. She is however very proficient at using computers with a headwand and does so nearly everyday for work and pleasure.

When it comes to online forms, it often takes Judith a long time to assemble the information and fill in the form. As a result, she generally prefers PDF forms rather than HTML forms because she can download them from the web, complete them in her own time and then go back online to submit them. For her, a good PDF form is much more accessible than a HTML form!

In my work, I have come across other situations where non-W3C formats have the potential to deliver content that is more accessible for the intended audience.

SLIDE 26:
For example, several years ago I reviewed some web-based kiosk material prepared for people who are homeless. The commissioning government agency recognised that a large proportion of their clients were functionally illiterate. However, the agency’s fear of breaching accessibility guidelines and thereby the (Australian) Disability Discrimination Act, resulted in them making a conscious decision not to use Flash, or any other non-text media, to present the information.

The solution, this short “Quick Guide”: 17 screens of words!

Another example, recently I had reason to look at online resources prepared for the vocational education sector in Australia. Most of the resources were interactive and contained Flash material.

Now for people with learning and cognitive disorders, a well made interactive resource that makes extensive use of non-text content is likely to be both more usable and more accessible. However, nearly 50% of the Flash material I examined would have been inaccessible to most screen reader users. And in many cases, the material trapped the cursor, thereby preventing anyone who was unable to use a mouse to get to the rest of the page.

When I asked some of the developers if they tried to make the Flash accessible, the answer was, “not often, not worth the effort, only if I am explicitly asked to”. The keen ones would go on to say they provided an alternative; but often this was not really an equivalent alternative to the Flash content as required by WCAG. For example rather than allowing someone to discover the answer to a problem through exploration or trial and error the alternative merely provided the answer.

SLIDE 27:
Killing Bambi, now there’s an idea!

For some, knocking Walt Disney is akin to mugging mother Teresa, even though he was known to hate kids and it is rumoured he had a torture chamber in the basement. But, what ever you think about Walt, killing Bambi is certainly bad taste.

SLIDE 28:
I won’t let that stop me.

Here we have a screen shot of the web page for ordering a DVD of the Bambi movie: At the top there is the main navigation, and down one side lots of links, for example, under the heading Categories there are links to things like Family Feature Films, Disney Classics, Disney Vaults, and then there are links to different formats etc. In the centre is the main panel with information about Bambi: “The forest comes alive with Bambi, the critically acclaimed coming-of-age story that has entertained generations of fans. This grand adventure is full of humour, heart and the most beloved characters of all time…”

Now is that not wholesome and cute? But what happens if I turn off Flash?

SLIDE 29:
Oh dear, no navigation!

I should add at this stage, that when Flash is supported and the page is accessed with a screen reader, each of the navigation items is identified with the word “button”. For example, Categories: button, button, button, button and button. Format, button, button, button and so on.

And, what about the use of images?

SLIDE 30:
Well that’s very useful, no navigation and now no content.

But since I used a tool to only turn off inline image, we do know it is about Bambi, courtesy of a background image. Also, the content about the forest coming alive with Bambi and the most beloved characters of all time which appears to have disappeared is actually HTML and can be read by a screen reader: Just a small problem of white on white.

But wait, not all is lost…

SLIDE 31:
See, we have a text alternative for one of the images, telling us this is the official Bambi DVD site, beware those unofficial sites.

And, as you can see, the headings use H elements.

No seriously, enough of this frivolity. I am not trying to suggest we shouldn’t use images, or JavaScript or Flash, although I am NOT sure that Flash for navigation is such a great idea.

There are sites that use these technologies in a way that is accessible, and sometimes Flash or JavaScript can enhance the accessibility of a site for the intended audience. What I am trying to suggest is that perhaps trying to discourage or prohibit the use of different technologies might not be the best way to go. I mean to say, who are we to try and take on the power of Walt and Bambi?

SLIDE 32:
The introduction of WCAG 2 at the end of 2008 offered a new approach. WCAG 2.0 is not concerned with the technology used, but
how it is used. Of course, as with many things that come out of the W3C, if you can say it in a few words, why not use 100 and the bigger and more specialised the better!

I would like to make it clear however, that I am a big fan of the W3C and the WAI. Even though I sometimes criticise them and WCAG a bit, I think they are great and applaud their work, but writing in plain English is not one of their strong points.

One significant difference with WCAG 1 is that the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and Success Criteria do not mention HTML and do not discriminate in favour or against any particular web content technologies. That is left up to others.

SLIDE 33
To help make this decision, WCAG 2 introduced the concept of “accessibility support”, and for a technology to be considered accessibility supported, it must meet two basic conditions:

1. First, the way a web content technology such Flash or HTML is used must work with assistive technologies.
2. Second, the user agents such as browsers and Readers, which are required to render the content, must also accessible and must not discriminate against people with disabilities in terms of availability and price.

SLIDE 34:
Of course, this raises the very interesting question of who decides what technologies can be considered accessibility supported. The W3C primarily hand this responsibility on to the authors of web sites, while at the same time recognising they probably don’t have the ability to make a decision:

“Individual authors will not usually be able to do all of the testing necessary to determine which ways of using which Web technologies are actually supported by which versions of assistive technologies and user agents.”

In reality, I am sure that the desire for consistency and certainty will mean that the various government agencies and other organisations, which are concerned with issues of discrimination in different countries, will be the ones who decide what technologies can be considered accessibility supported.

And, when it comes to deciding which assistive technologies should be able to support content, the WCAG Working Group handed the decision over to, well who knows who.

In my view, the failure to provide clear guidance in regard to these issues is one of the most significant failings of WCAG 2.0 and it places web accessibility at the crossroads.

SLIDE 35:
For, as countries move to endorse WCAG 2.0 they are faced with the issue of how to deal with the many different web content technologies and formats that are in use to day. Do they adopt the WCAG 1.0 approach of basically saying only W3C formats like HTML can be relied on to present content? Or, do they embrace the WCAG 2.0 notion of technological neutrality, and concentrate on how the technology is used rather then the technology itself?

This is a very complicated question, with many competing arguments. The simple solution is to stick with what you already know. This seems to be the approach adopted by New Zealand, which in March 2009 became one of the first countries to adopt WCAG 2.0.

SLIDE 36:
Apart from some of the technical changes relating to the use of HTML, as far as I can see, the New Zealand accessibility standards of today are very little different to those of 10 years ago.

If you use JavaScript and other programmatic objects, the pages or page elements must not rely on them for presentation or functionality – pretty much the same as WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 6.3 (among others). And, if you use non-W3C formats such as Flash, PDF, Word and even RTF, you have to also provide the content in HTML; much like WCAG 1, Guideline 11 and specifically Checkpoint 11.4.

In essence, this is a prohibition model and provides little or no encouragement to improve the accessibility of non-W3C material.

SLIDE 37:
The New Zealand model is one simple solution to the problem of how to ensure the accessibility of content produced with new technologies. Another simple, or should that be simplistic, solution is to assert that it is all the fault of the regulators: If they prosecuted a few more people then the problem would be solved. In essence take out the big stick and use it to beat developers and manager into complying.

Sorry, but I don’t buy simple solutions to complex problems, particularly ones that involve human behaviour.

SLIDE 38:
In my view, web content accessibility regulations need to cater for the range of technologies that are currently being used, and those that may be used in the future. I am concerned that a continuation of the current (WCAG 1.0) practice of only considering W3C technologies accessible will:

• Provide little incentive for developers to improve the accessibility of web content that uses non-W3C formats like JavaScript and PDF.
• And, in the process, reduce the pressure on the producers of non-W3C technologies to improve the accessibility of their products.
• Furthermore, if these products are hard to make accessible and most developers don’t bother to use the few accessibility features that are available, where is the incentive for the manufacturers of assistive technologies to improve the capabilities of what they produce?
• Finally, when it comes to community acceptance of web accessibility, I am afraid that as more and more high-traffic sites use inaccessible non-W3C technologies without appropriate alternatives, web developers will increasingly question the value of making their sites accessible.

Rather than prohibiting the use of specific technologies, I think it is time to try something different. And so I would now like to sketch out a few ideas or suggestions.

SLIDE 39:
As a start, I think the New Zealand minimalist WCAG model is not appropriate. I believe Australia and other countries, that use WCAG as their reference point for accessibility, should adopt WCAG 2.0 at level AA. And, I believe they should embrace the notion of technological neutrality.

The Australian Government recently endorsed WCAG 2 and announced they would progressively move to Level AA over the next four years. But the question of which technologies will be considered acceptable is still to be decided and I desperately hope we don’t follow the approach of our Tasman cousins.

I believe the key question should be: Does the use of a web technology comply with the guiding Principles and Guidelines of WCAG 2.0?

SLIDE 40:
Very often discussion about compliance with WCAG 2.0 is solely in terms of the Success Criteria and their associated Techniques. That is: Are these specific techniques satisfied on a web page? If they are, then the page complies with the related Success Criteria. And if all the Success Criteria are complied with, then the page is considered accessible.

From my experience very few people in the industry understand the difference between ‘normative’ Success Criteria and ‘informative’ Techniques. Just the other day, a very large organisation told me that they hadn’t gone for Level AA because the developer had told them that they would have to meet over 700 W3C accessibility rules.

Of course this is not correct, but many developers are looking for hard and fast rules relating to HTML such as “use header elements”, as was the case with WCAG 1, and they see these rules in the Techniques document and so believe they must all be met.

Developers, and their clients, often appear to be mainly concerned with ticking off a few checkpoints rather than making sure something is accessible. I believe, when it comes to determining if a site is accessible, a more comprehensive and satisfactory approach is contained in the five Conformance Requirements specified in the WCAG 2.0 document, but unfortunately it seems to me that most developers are not aware of them.

SLIDE 41:
As I have indicated, much of the discussion concerning the implementation WCAG 2.0 often revolves around whether or not a particular content technology can be considered to be accessible. And, there is pressure on regulators to indicate which technologies they believe are accessibility supported.

Rather than attempting to nominate accessible web content technologies, I feel it might be more useful for regulators to identify those assistive technologies (and technology versions) that they believe need to be able to access web content. Obviously, such a list would need to be regularly up dated as assistive technologies improve and new ones are developed.

For example, lets imagine for a moment, that the only requirement is for all web content to be accessible with JAWS Versions 8 plus. Then if a particular use of PDF, or Flash, or HTML for that matter, can be successfully used with JAWS 8, 9, 10 etc it would be considered “accessibility supported”.

Now of course this is a very simplistic example and there would probably be many more nominated assistive technologies. But, such an approach would give certainty to clients, encourage developers to improve the accessibility of content technologies, and just as importantly, it would be easily testable.

SLIDE 42:
I feel it would also be useful for developers to prepare an accessibility compliance statement as suggested in WCAG 2.0. The statement doesn’t have to be anything fancy, nor should it require the use of an accessibility specialist. All the statement needs to do is:

• Indicate the pages, site or application it applies to
• The WCAG level complied with
• The technologies that are relied upon, that is the ones for which there is no alternative
• The technologies used but not relied up, that is those that are used for which an alternative is provided
• The author/owner of the site
• And, the date of Statement

I can see it might be difficult to have a requirement for Compliance Statements at a national or government level, but I think it is very possible for this to be a requirement at the industry sector level or by individual businesses.

One big benefit of compliance statements is that they provide something concrete that the site can be measured against should a complaint be made. Also, requiring an accessibility statement will help return responsibility for accessibility to the wider web community.

SLIDE 43:
The Web as we know it, is 16 years young, still to reach voting age in Australia. We all know there is a lot of inaccessible junk out there, but I feel it is better to spend time improving stuff for the future rather than worrying about the crappy junk of the past.

In my view, there should be a full exemption from complying with either WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0 for all materials produced before 1 January 2009, on the condition that the owners of those materials provide a description of the materials and what they contain. I know many will disagree with this approach since it will give tacit approval to a bunch of inaccessible material, much of it old. However, I don’t think it is realistic to assume that much of this material will be improved what ever the regulators say.

If material has any ongoing value is it likely to be updated or migrated to a new or revised site at sometime in the future. And when this happens, I believe there should be a requirement for the material to comply with WCAG 2.0.

In other words, we say to content owners, if you don’t need it get rid of it and if you want to keep it, make it accessible.

SLIDE 44:
We know a well made site can be used by people with disabilities, and there is a tendency to assume everyone knows this. But this is not the case.

It is amazing how many developers and people with responsibility for websites in large organisations really have no idea. In my experience, hostility to web accessibility guidelines often stems from the fact that people just don’t see the point. They just can’t believe someone who is blind, for example, can use a computer let alone the web

A quick digression to help illustrate this point: A few years I took a client to the Royal Blind Society in Sydney so that they could see how people with different vision impairments use their site. Anyway, as it happens we couldn’t get onto the web – some problem with the proxy settings or something or other. So we rang tech support. And in due course a young man in a white shirt turned up, an experience the client was very familiar with.

But here is the difference; the tech support man was blind. Using information he got from a Braille note machine, the young man re-configured the settings and had us online in no time at all. And what about the client – well their eyes were out on stalks, just could not believe it!

For some years I have been running accessibility workshops. Now obviously these workshops are more likely to appeal to people who are sympathetic to the notion of accessibility. Five years ago, when I asked if anyone had seen a screen reader in use, I would be lucky if one in twenty had. Two years ago, it was over 30%, but none had seen Braille being used. And so I decided to make a video, utilising the skills of my pre-web life when I worked in the film and television industry for many years.

SLIDE 45:
I made “Refreshable Braille and the Web” with a friend Bruce Maguire, who I am sure some of you know. In the video he demonstrates the machine and shows how he goes about buying a book from Amazon. The video is available on YouTube and DotSub, where it has been captioned and translated by others into Italian and Spanish.

I have found videos to be a great awareness raising tool and I regularly use them in my workshops. But more importantly, I have found they are a great way to break down the resistance to accessibility by some clients. With many clients, and developers for that matter, a simple short video like this one, or “Wheeling in Second Life” which I mentioned earlier, can be more effective than many thousands of words!

The number of videos on the web showing different assistive technologies in use is growing all the time and I think this is great. I am hoping to make a few more myself in the future as time permits.

But video is only one of many possible ways we can raise awareness and provide information about accessibility. The WAI documents, such as the Business Case overview, are another great awareness raising resource which I refer people to.

SLIDE 46:
There is a growing need for more information and resources for the web community about what is required to produce accessible material using different content formats.

The W3C clearly have a very important role to play in this, but it should not be left up to them alone. Regulators and the web industry as a whole could do more in disseminating information about how to make accessible sites. I should acknowledge the considerable role many individuals and organisations have played in this regard over the last few years, but much more needs to be done.

This will be increasingly important, not only because new content technologies are appearing all the time, but also because we are constantly developing new ways of doing things, for example not so many years ago no one had ever heard of image-replacement or Ajax. The underlying technologies were always there, it’s just that now they are being combined and used in new ways.

SLIDE 47:
In the rush to explore and introduce new ways of providing online content, the cost of ensuring access to this content by all web users is often overlooked.

Although, as we all know, the price of computers falls by the minute, there are still millions of people who can’t afford to keep up with the latest and greatest in this rapidly changing environment. And, let us not forget, that within our communities, people with disabilities are often among those with the least financial resources.

There is little point in introducing a fantastic online resource for people with cognitive limitations, for example, if it doesn’t run on standard, commonly used user platforms. And, when it comes to assistive technologies like screen readers, vendors are bringing out new versions all the time in order to keep up with the changing web.

Some how we need to avoid the costs of technological advances becoming an entrenched barrier to accessibility. In this regard, I am very interested in the whole NVDA movement and in the way outside financial support have allowed them to focus on improving access to new developments like ARIA.

While NVDA might not be as comprehensive as many of the commercial screen readers, it is free and relatively easy to use, and so offers a real alternative to people around the world who rely on screen readers to access the web.

The accessibility problems associated with image CAPTCHAs are well known, and this has stimulated a third-party volunteer solution called Solana. While community engagement and social problem solving is great, should access to some areas of the web for people with disabilities be dependent on the good will of a few? Might, this not be another variant of the charity model I referred to earlier?

SLIDE 48:
When it comes to assistive technologies, we often assume that all the people who rely on them to access the web are highly skilled in their use. I am not sure why we make this assumption, because it is not one we tend to make with other web technologies.

In a recent WebAIM survey of screen reader users, about 60% of respondents described themselves as having advanced computer skills. And when it came to screen reader proficiency, 50% described their proficiency as intermediate or beginner. (We need to bear in mind that the respondents to this survey are likely to be at the more aware or geeky screen reader users.) When it came to learning how to use screen readers, nearly three quarters said they were self taught.

So finally, in addition to taking a technologically neutral approach to WCAG 2 and increasing the ability of web developers to make accessible content, in my view, assistive technology users also need to be provided with the resources to help them improve their skills in using the technologies they require to access content in a variety of formats.

SLIDE 49:
I am fearful if we don’t take a more active approach to accessibility and rely just on rules and regulations alone, the web will increasingly become a communication medium that only an able-bodied, tech-literate elite will be able to participate in.

Thank you. Here are my contact details.

Any questions or comments?

During the ceremony, Ms Deveny tweeted constantly. While it appears many were in dubious taste, the one relating Bindi Irwin, “I do so hope Bindi gets laid“, caused the most offence. No doubt, at a dinner party, Ms Deveny’s friends would have found all her asides hilarious and they may have gone down well at a comedy festival, but was Twitter an appropriate forum for the Bindi comment?

Twitter with its own social conventions and abbreviated language is great for promoting oneself or events, products and issues, so it is hardly surprising that it has been so enthusiastically embraced by those with something or someone to sell. Tweets are good for conveying extremes of emotions; love or hate, admiration or disgust; but with 140 characters it is very hard to engender much in the way of empathy or compassion.

When Ms Deveny was later questioned about her tweeted wish for an 11 year old girl to get laid, she expressed surprise that some found the comment offensive. “I wouldn’t think you’d have to explain,” she told the ABC. “I used humour to highlight the celebrity culture, the raunch culture and the sexualisation, sexual objectification of women’s bodies.”

Well, maybe some of her 5,900 followers and the countless others to whom it was re-tweeted were cool enough ‘to get it’. But then again, maybe some of those people just saw a “celebrity” with the authority of a major newspaper promoting the notion that paedophilia is acceptable. For me, one of the most outstanding aspects of the whole saga was Ms Deveny’s total lack of awareness and apparent complete surprise when she was sacked the next day. She clearly felt that it was the fault of the old-media who just didn’t understand social networking: “I was taken out of context, the thing is Twitter is … you have got to understand social networking to get the context of it, it’s passing notes in class.”

I agree with Ms Deveny that it is a question of context, for is that not the case with all effective communication. But, I would have thought short, smart quips or the passing of notes in class are never going to be capable of providing the necessary context for anything other than mere titillation when it comes to the consideration of complex issues such as the “sexual objectification of women’s bodies” or pre-teen sexual relations.

But perhaps I have misunderstood the context. Maybe the context Ms Deveny was referring to is that of shock-jocks and celebrity vultures, those who are willing to do whatever it takes to raise their celebrity status. Only time will tell, but maybe the whole saga was a confection and we will soon see the emergence on morning radio of ‘Cat-the-Twit’ with an equally attention seeking partner.

“You can only do your best,” Dean Thomas soberly told his daughter Jane. “Remember you only started rowing this year and now you are in the finals for a state title.”

“Thanks,” Jane said with a sarcastic snort. “That’s my Dad always the pessimist. We can win you know!”

“That’s right Mr Thomas,” Ruth chipped in. “We are as good as the others, it just depends on our start.”

Race time got nearer and the small talk faded. Declaring a need to prepare themselves for the big race, Ruth and Jane walked slowly back to the rowing shed on their own. The girls stripped off their tracksuits as soothing words of encouragement from Steve, their coach for the critical last few months, washed over them

Peter and Marty, the two young men who had come to Ruth and Jane’s rescue following that fateful afternoon at Lushers, held the racing shell steady against the edge of the ramp. As the girls got in, no one said a word, an eerie silence that only added to the already tense atmosphere.

Breaking the spell, Peter and Marty quietly wished their friends luck before pushing the coxless pair out into the river.

Ruth and Jane slowly stroked their way to the starting line. For Ruth, an experienced rower with a couple of state titles already to her name, nothing felt right. She tried to hide her mounting nervousness from her less experienced companion, but Jane could sense something was wrong. The girls manoeuvred their shell to the fourth position of the starting line.

“Come on, relax, relax!” Ruth whispered to herself.

Letting go of her oars, Jane gave her partner’s shoulders a quick rub, “We’ll be right,” she said confidently as the starter raised his white flag and called “All crews ready”.

The four boats in the Junior Women’s final were steady in the line. On the shore, the families and friends of the competitors waited silently, expectantly, for the starter’s gun.

The silence shattered, and in spite of the hours of practise Ruth started with a quick series of three-quarter power-strokes that threw Jane off balance. At the 50 metre mark, they were last and still to find a comfortable rhythm.

On the ramp in front of the rowing shed, Peter and Marty groaned as Coach Steve continued to watch the unfolding race expressionless.

“Christ, terrible!” Marty exclaimed as the girls struggled.

“They’re done for, eh Steve,” Peter agreed looking to the coach.

“Never give up boys,” Steve said quietly without so-much as a glance away from the action in the centre of the river. Further down the river bank, Dean and Madge Thomas along with Abraham Goldsmith and Sky Crystal watched in subdued silence as those around them cheered wildly for the rival boats.

Ruth settled. By the two hundred metre buoy, she was providing a steady 32 full strokes per minute, a rating that allowed Jane to regain her confidence and rhythm. The girls were now working well as a pair and as they approached the three hundred metre mark they overtook the third boat in the race.

“At least we’re not going to come last,” Jane thought to herself. “Faster?” she suggested in a barked voice between half breaths to her companion in the stroke seat.

Ruth smiled to herself, gave a slight nod and pulled hard on her oars as she started to increase the rating. On the rowing shed ramp, Steve allowed himself a half smile as the sleek racing shell began to glide more gracefully through the water.

“They’ve lifted the rating,” Marty said excitedly. “They’re starting to look good.”

“It’s too early, they’ll never keep it,” Peter replied despondently. “Jane hasn’t got the experience.”

“Don’t be so sure,” Steve said. “She’s a tough one.”

The gap between the first and third pair in the race shrank with each stroke. The spectators, who were now all on their feet at the edge of the river, cheered wildly as Ruth and Jane pulled level with the second boat. The growing excitement exacerbated Dean Thomas’s propensity to over-react so much that he looked in danger of loosing both his voice and trousers. Madge, abandoning her usual role of moderating the energetic excess of her husband, cheered the girls on with equal intensity as did Ruth’s father Abraham. The remaining member of the cheer squad, Sky Crystal, overwhelmed with the emotion of the competition, reverted to the behaviour of her school years. Her cosmic tranquillity deserted in favour of a full-throated rendition of the old Lushers School war cry, complete with hand movements.

With less than a hundred metres to go, Ruth and Jane were in second place, but still more than half a boat length behind the leaders. It looked like an impossible task.

“That’s it. Second,” Peter declared.

“Yeah, could’ve been first,” Marty reluctantly agreed.

“It’s not over yet boys, have a look,” Steve offered as Ruth pushed the rating even higher, hoping her less experienced partner would be able to keep up.

“Shit!” Peter exclaimed, attracting a censoring glance from the coach. “Sorry Steve, but it must be over forty, this is fantastic!”

“Hang in there Jane!” Marty screamed. “You can do it. Come on!”

As Ruth and Jane began to gain on the leading boat, Steve’s cool calm dissolved and he joined the boys in shouting encouragement while wishing, praying, for a miracle.

In the final episode, “A Chilly End”, Merlin rages and brings some justice with its last gasp.

On the Sunday morning, Abraham Goldsmith drove Jane Thomas and his daughter Ruth out to the venue for the championships, a straight stretch of river cutting through the semi-rural outskirts of the city. The car stopped beside the rowing shed just as the sun was rising above the surrounding hills, its rays turning the still water into golden glass.

The girls grabbed their duffle bags and got out of the car. Abraham knew he was only likely to get in the way if he stayed so left in search of a coffee. Ruth and Jane walked over to a small group standing in front of the shed where they greeted Peter and Marty with nerve tinged enthusiasm. The boys had come out to the venue earlier with their coach Steve and had already unloaded the coxless-pair racing shell that Ruth and Jane would be using.

After Ruth and Jane had checked and double checked all the rowing gear, Peter and Marty helped them carry the racing shell down the ramp and put it in the water. Jane and Ruth, still in their tracksuits, got into the pair as coach Steve strode down the ramp toward them.

“Go easy girls, just make sure everything is right. You’re in the first heat,”

“Good, that’ll give us time to rest up before the final,” Ruth replied and pushed off from the ramp with an oar The girls stroked their way out into the centre of the river, getting the feel of the seat slides, oars and water.

Dean and Madge Thomas, accompanied by their neighbour Sky Crystal, got to the rowing venue an hour before the scheduled start of heats for the Junior Women’s Coxless Pair. They immediately walked over to the rowing shed where Abraham Goldsmith was with the girls and their supporters. Everyone appeared to be talking at once as Jane and Ruth got final instructions and wishes of luck. Amid the chaotic swirl of excitement, Ruth adopted the calming role of the old-hand, who had been there before, but struggled to contain the effusiveness of Dean and Madge Thomas or the cosmic exultations of Sky.

“It’s time we got ready,” Ruth told her rowing partner. Jane nodded and after final hugs all round the guests left the shed.

“Just make sure you get a good start,” Peter told Jane and Ruth as they walked down the ramp to the rowing shell.

“And relax,” Marty contributed. “The only opposition you’ve got is the boat on your right.”

“That’s right, you gotta relax. It’s hopeless if you tense up. You just …”

“Come on you guys,” Ruth interrupted. “You’re the ones making us tense.”

“Yeah, sorry,” Peter replied sheepishly.

“Come on Jane, let’s do it!” Ruth exclaimed and the girls got into the sleek racing shell and quietly stroked their way out to the starting position.

Ruth and Jane got a good start, quickly settled into a comfortable rhythm and were soon a canvas ahead of their nearest rival. They led throughout the race and, although the time wasn’t great, the win guaranteed them a start in the finals that afternoon.

As the shell drifted to a halt, Ruth in the stroke seat turned around and gave her friend a big smile. “See, nothing to it.”

Jane, who had shunned all forms of sport before meeting Ruth on her first day at Lushers College for Ladies just a few months earlier, smiled back with a mixture of relief and exhilaration.

Dean Thomas was an obsessive: The always beautiful front window display of the Thomas delicatessen, with the shop name carefully painted in Gothic gold lettering, bore testimony to his OCD tendencies. Dean had prepared the race-day picnic lunch with equal fastidiousness, a selection of the best cheeses, meats, pickles and breads were now laid out on a tartan rug beside the river; a vista more Henley Royal Regatta than Henley on Todd.

Ruth and Jane joined their parents and Sky Crystal on the picnic rug. Soon, everyone, apart from the girls-of-the-moment, was hoeing into the food with gusto. Neither girl felt particularly hungry, but after some prodding from her mother Jane picked up an olive.

“You too Ruth, eat!” Abraham insisted.

Ruth put a couple of dry biscuits on her plate and following a demanding glance from her father began to nibble on one.

“Ah should we care,” Abraham said, echoing the over-protective Jewish mother stereotype of American movies. “So much food and she eats a biscuit! How will you have enough strength for this afternoon?”

Ruth smiled at her father and put some more food on her plate. “Look at you, Jane,” she said mimicking her father. “All skin ‘n bone. My life!”

Abraham rocked back in laughter, and as the others joined in, Ruth and Jane set to on the food.

“News of Elliott Price’s involvement in the Regal Mortgage scandal is starting to come out,” Abraham said turning to face Dean and Madge Thomas. “It’s getting a bit too hot for him so he’s escaped to the slopes in Switzerland.”

“That’d be right. That lot really suffer don’t they?” Dean replied sarcastically, throwing a damper over the occasion.

“Well, I’ve got some good news,” Sky said breaking the frosty mood. With glee she told them that Ralph Fly had phoned to tell her about the flood at the offices of Purvis Holdings.

“It seems some of the shopping centre documents got destroyed, including the contract you signed,” Sky told Dean with a laugh.

“You sure?” Dean asked.

“Positive!”

“You beauty!” Dean shouted. “Free of the bastard.”

“Yes dear, it’s a relief,” Madge said resting her hand on Dean’s arm. “But, as often happens, the villains got away.

“It’s about time you both had a change of luck,” Abraham said as he poured a glass of wine for Dean and Madge.

In the next episode, “The Finals”, in spite of hours of practice the girls get a bad start and have to struggle to stay in the race.

As Sky delivered her bombshell, the Merlin freezer in the Thomas deli started with a loud clunk. “The biggest in the world,” she added, and the freezer motor roared.

“That can’t be true,” Dean said, struggling to make sense of what he had just heard. “I saw Ray Purvis only the other day. He was still talking about a shopping centre.”

“He would, wouldn’t he?” Sky snorted. “But it is true. His assistant Ralph told me, just this afternoon.”

“Why would Purvis’s assistant tell you a thing like that?” Madge demanded, with a little more force than she intended. “You know what I mean, especially if it’s true.”

“Sorry Mrs T, but it is true. Ralph loves fish, he’s outraged,” Sky said, giving Madge a gentle hug. “Oh Mr Thomas they use those awful drift nets. The vacuum cleaners of the sea that catch everything.”

“We’ve got to stop them,” Jane said urgently.

“That’s what Ralph says too,” Sky agreed. “They won’t get my place. I haven’t signed anything yet.”

“What about us, Dad?” Jane asked looking from her father’s ashen face to that of her mother. “Will we have to sell?”

Dean shrugged his shoulders, his voice just a thin whisper. “We’re cactus. I’ve already signed.”

“What a bummer,” Sky said and walked to the front door of the shop. “I’m going to meditate on it. That always helps.”

Sky gentle closed the door after leaving, as though not to disturb the depressing solemnity of the moment. Madge’s reaction was very different. She was furious and ready to fight.

“Forget the meditating bullshit,” Madge shouted as she snatched up a piece of butcher’s paper from the counter. “I’ll do for the buggers right now!”

Madge strode towards the kitchen door. For years, she had put the names of those who caused her harm in the freezer compartment of the family fridge. Technological voodooism to help salve a battered soul even though in her heart or hearts Madge knew it could not possibly affect the actual person.

The motor of the deli Merlin freezer raced and was soon revving so fast that the vibrations caused the metal frame holding it to shake. Dean called out to his wife, “If we’ve going in for one of your voodoo tricks, why don’t we really put them on ice.”

Thump, thump the freezer chassis banged against the floor as Dean took the sheet of paper from his wife and laid it on the glass top of the Merlin cabinet. Jane passed her father a felt tip pen and on the paper he wrote the names ‘Purvis’, ‘Price’ and St Clair’.

Just as Dean was about to slide open the glass top, Madge stopped him. “You didn’t say their names! Come on, we’ve got to do this properly.”

With one hand, Madge took one of her husband’s hands. “Now make a circle,” she instructed taking hold of a hand offered by Jane. As father and daughter held hands, the circle formed with the paper on the Merlin in the centre. “Now, the full names,” Madge said, and the three members of the Thomas family chanted in unison, “Ray Purvis, Elliott Price, Murray St Clair.”

Dean picked up the paper, opened the vibrating glass top of the Merlin and dropped the names into the freezer.

3.00 AM, the bedside clock glared back at Dean. Dean and Madge had retired to their bedroom above the shop many hours earlier, but neither could sleep.

“Come on love,” Madge said gently. “We decided together. We’re both to blame.”

“I was the one who signed everything away, not you,” Dean replied despondently. “I should have never trusted that bugger Purvis, you didn’t.”

“What’s done is done, Dean,” Madge said firmly. “Let’s see what the lawyer has to say on Monday. Come on, try to get some sleep, tomorrows’ Jane’s big day,” Madge said reminding her husband of the State Rowing Championships that Jane and her friend Ruth Goldsmith were competing in the following day.

From their bedroom they could just hear the sound of the Merlin freezer downstairs, as unbeknown to them it worked for a miracle.

The sale contract, which Dean had signed so carefully with his fountain pen, was still at the top of the pile on Ray Purvis’s desk when the sprinkler system at Purvis Holdings suddenly came on at 3.17 in the morning. Although there was no hint of smoke or excessive heat, water sprayed everywhere.

A jet of water from one of the sprinklers in the ceiling of Ray Purvis’s office soaked the contract. It seemed to be targeted at Dean’s handwriting: The ink smudged, ran and began to wash away. When all trace of Dean’s signature had been obliterated, the sprinklers stopped, just as suddenly as they had started.

In the next episode, “Race Day”, Jane and Ruth get off to rocky start in the double sculls and Abraham Goldsmith reports on the sudden departure of Elliott Price for the ski slopes of Switzerland.

For more than a decade, the rules and regulations relating to the accessibility of web content in many countries have generally considered non-W3C technologies like JavaScript, PDF or Flash to be inaccessible. However today, the number of web users is far greater than was the case at the start of the millennium, and they are using it for many more reasons, with many different technologies.

Has the accessibility of the web improved in the years since the release of WCAG 1.0 in 1999? Anecdotally this seems to be the case and when you look at specific sites it is often easy to see improvement. But overall, I don’t know if the content of the web is anymore accessible. I regularly come across sites that fail basic accessibility guidelines.

I did a quick check of the seven most visited sites in Australia and the US and it appears none comply fully with the minimum requirements of WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 and nearly all contain non-W3C content without adequate accessible alternatives. Also let us not forget, the first major legal action relating to website inaccessibility concerned the site of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, and yet, according to a recent report by Joe Clark, ten years on the website for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics is also inaccessible.

There is a tendency to consider website accessibility primarily from the perspective of people with impaired vision. In particular, accessibility is often equated with how well a site and the information it contains can be accessed by someone who relies on a screen reader to use the web. Only about one third of people who report a disability however, indicate their disability is related to sight. So, are accessibility requirements that work well for screen readers users as effective at meeting the needs of people with other disabilities?

WCAG 2.0, which was released in December 2008, does not dictate which web content technologies should be used. This technologically neutral approach means the guidelines are likely to be more appropriate for a rapidly changing web, where new technologies and techniques are being developed all the time. WCAG 2 does not specify the web content technologies that might be considered ‘accessibility supported’ nor does WCAG 2.0 indicate which, or how many, assistive technologies should be able to access web content that is ‘accessibility supported’. Could the lack of clear guidance in relation to these matters result in regulators playing it safe? I am fearful that a failure by governments and regulators to embrace the notion of technological neutrality when it comes to content technologies could ultimately undermine the universality of the web.

Over the years, I, and many others, have often used the risk of possible prosecution under disability discrimination laws as a convenient argument for improvements in website accessibility. But, has this big-stick legislative approach been successful? Most web developers and senior managers know the risk of prosecution is extremely low and many still do not seem to be particularly sensitive to the issue of accessibility.

Rather than complaining about the possible failings of past, I believe after a decade of accessibility rules it is time explore options for the future: We need to enhance the acceptance of accessibility guidelines; raise the overall awareness of the need for improved web content accessibility; address the cost of access to information for assistive technology users; and, improve the ability of people with disabilities to use assistive technologies and standard user agents like browsers.

In the real world, most people now accept that the needs of people with disabilities should be accommodated in public transport and building design. When it comes to the web however, I am concerned that many still view accessibility through the lens of charity and not rights. Too often the needs of people with disabilities who use the web are dismissed and web site accessibility is considered an add-on, something to be done only when time and money permit. Rules alone are not enough. Attitudes and behaviour both also need to change.

“Ten Years of Web Content Accessibility Rules: Time for a Rethink?” presentation is on Friday March 26 at 9.20.