lynx-dev Break this page!

[Joe Clark]

There were justified complaints that my previous posting of this 
message had lousy linebreaks, which are themselves an accessibility 
issue <rueful grin>, so here goes with a better-formatted version.

--

Aaron Doust and I have been working on an experiment in access to 
photographs contained in Web pages.

There are three issues at stake:

1. Not all browsers can display graphics. Lynx and WannaBe are 
text-only browsers, for example.
        <http://lynx.browser.org/>
        <http://pluto.njcc.com/%7Edtp/wb2/wannabe.html>

2. Some nondisabled netters surf the Web with graphics loading turned 
off because it's faster.

3. Blind and visually-impaired people can't see the graphics or can't 
see them well, and/or may also be using a text-only browser or have 
graphics loading turned off.


Four Web pages at Aaron's site have been developed to show how, in 
the real world, this problem can be solved. We are bringing 
accessibility out of the realm of the theoretical here.

First of all, every image on Aaron's site (not just the test pages in 
question) now has an alt text, which is required in HTML 4.0 and has 
always been recommended in previous versions of HTML. A great many 
Web authors fail to include the dead-simple feature of alt texts, 
which by themselves make a site easier to use for people in the three 
categories above.
        <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH/#A1>

We have produced four subpages whose photos have written 
descriptions. (They're Aaron's photos and he wrote the HTML; I wrote 
the descriptions.) The photos depict various biketrials riders in 
Perth, Australia.
<http://www.space.net.au/~adoust/information/background/background.htm>
<http://www.interlog.com/~joeclark/hardplace.html>
<http://www.interlog.com/~joeclark/trials-judging.html>

If the topic isn't of much interest to you, well, make allowances. 
The point here is that even a hobbyist page can be accessible, and if 
hobbyist pages can be, corporate Web sites easily can be accessible, 
too.

There are four pages with four different approaches. Note that the 
URLs are each a mile long.

1.
<http://www.space.net.au/~adoust/gallery/riding/
margaret_river/photos_margaret_river.htm>

These photos use a novel approach of linking a text description to 
the actual caption of the photo. You thus have three ways to 
interpret the photo without graphics: From the alt text, from the 
written caption, and from the long description that caption links to. 
This approach works in, say, journalism sites where photos are given 
captions, as was the convention in the print newspapers they often 
emulate. It solves the problem of cluttering up pages with D. links 
to descriptions. It introduces its own problem of cluttering pages 
with two visible descriptions and one invisible description all of 
the same thing.


2.
<http://www.space.net.au/~adoust/gallery/riding/
east_perth/photos_east_perth.htm>

Here, we adhere to the HTML 4.0 standard for the LONGDESC tag for 
long descriptions. Since no browser anywhere in the universe supports 
this tag, the best you're going to do with this page is to view the 
source code and admire its brilliance. Perhaps version 5.0 of 
Netscape and Explorer will properly support LONGDESC. Or perhaps 
Opera will beat them to it.
        <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.8>


3.
<http://www.space.net.au/~adoust/gallery/riding/
kings_park/photos_kings_park.htm>

In this page, all photos have descriptions, links to which are given 
by (D). But all the descriptions are in one single file with 
different <#anchor> links.

4.
<http://www.space.net.au/~adoust/gallery/riding/
subiaco/photos_subi.htm>

All photos have descriptions, links to which are given by (D). All 
descriptions occupy their own separate files.



Other techniques we could have used, but did not, include setting up 
a neighbouring single-pixel GIF the same height as the image that is 
itself a link to the long description. This is an unsatisfactory 
solution for various reasons. If you're using a graphical browser 
with graphics turned off, your font size is quite unlikely to be 
small enough to display the (D) or D. so that you can actually click 
the thing. If you have graphics loading turned on, you never see the 
link, and might notice it only if you catch the status line changing 
as you happen to move the mouse over it. This technique tends to 
render you more blind than you already are. Solely in text-only 
browsers does this approach provide accessibility and elegance.

Further, we could have written nifty little lines of Javascript that 
tell you to click the image for a full description when your cursor 
hovers over the image. That wouldn't work here (a) because there's no 
Javascript and (b) because selecting the image brings up a full-size 
version of the photo. Still, it works in two other sites:
        <http://vallartabooks.com>
        <http://tropicasa.com>

...which actually do a number of good things for accessibility and 
are themselves models.

We did not write descriptions of the entire pages as a visual whole, 
and all the images are presented within tables. Those may be problems 
for some visitors.


What we want you to do is to BREAK OUR PAGES. Load the four subpages 
in every conceivable combination of platform, browser, graphics mode, 
and assistive technology. The more unlikely, the better. We 
especially want to hear from PDA users (like Newtons or PalmPilots) 
and people using speech output. Tell us how the pages look and how 
easy or difficult they are for you to navigate and interpret. Also, 
if you want to really go to town here, try fiddling with your 
settings to BREAK THE PAGE. Select, for example, a 96-point font, or 
a 6-point font. Then ask all your friends, with their own odd little 
settings, to try to BREAK THE PAGE. (Forward and post this message 
anywhere you want.)

Every aspect is up for discussion, from coding to appearance to 
writing. All suggestions articulated in a reasonably good-natured 
tone will be considered, and we may update the pages over time to try 
new things.

Give us feedback (that's *both* of us):
        <mailto:address@hidden>
        <mailto:address@hidden>

Collated comments will be forwarded in due course.

--
                                Joe Clark
                       Listmanagerboy, Media Access
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          address@hidden
             <http://www.interlog.com/~joeclark/axxlist.html>