Actually, no, the RNIB does not “recommend the use of clear print instead of large print.” The document (a PDF) says: “the RNIB advocate[s] clear print as an alternative to large print…. For many partially-sighted people, well-designed print information at 12 or 14 point is satisfactory.” Nobody’s replacing anything here.
They then go on to queer the deal by essentially recommending you use New Century Schoolbook bold (or, I suppose, “Universe” bold, whatever that is). If that isn’t horrific enough for you, you can always follow their recommendation to use Arial bold without italics. By the way, what are “ornate” typefaces? I have a vague idea, but the last time I saw one of those was a tattoo on a guy’s back in blackletter.
We are, in any event, discussing Web sites and not print.
I would be rather surprised if the RNIB, known for its truculence and touchiness about Web accessibility (and for resolutely questionable advice for same), actually has verifiable research to back up the eyebrow-raising claims in this document.
Tea Bore: > Two buttons, ‘change colors’ and ‘change layout’ in the top left corner might be a good solution.
These functions should provide browser or OS on any page. Why implement “low-vision support” to every website? The only way is to improve browser and OS. Some applications do that even today (Opera, IE with Web Accessibility Toolbar etc.) so, why not the others?
I agree to Chris Hester’s post [1], he just takes the words out of my mouth – several things need to be differentiated, be it existing features or alternative workarounds.
Setting up a preferences page must of course be subject of further testing.
I’ve skimmmed through the comments quickly, but I didn’t see anything about my query. If we have a single column but fixed width layout, like many of the ‘current’ designs, to what extent do we need ‘zoom’ layouts?
If someone has poor vision, I’m guessing they’d use a lower resolution to make everything bigger? In that instance the single column would be nearly full width, and the only thing in danger would be a horizontal navigation bar…
Or have I missed something somewhere?
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Paul Eley
If a user has standard assistive technologies installed, the feature in this article results in a “double zoom”. A violation of s508 since it constitutes interfering with an existing assistive technology.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Jeff McGinnis
I’m glad to see discussion seems to be expanding to address the vast majority of people with visual impairments (VI). Most people with VI have some vision. In fact, only about 10% of the blind/VI population in the U.S. are totally blind. And yet most of the talk about acessibility seems to assume that users have no vision.
I wonder how many web designers have really spent time watching how someone with a visual impairment, or any disability, works at a computer. My guess, not so many. A field trip to an agenty in your community that work with people with blindness and VI’s might be worth doing. Go see how someone really uses the computer, and what kind of technology is really being used.
It’s great to read about studies and best practices, but nothing replaces experience. And just like any usability study, people don’t always do what you might expect, they do what is effective for them.
By the way, I once did some training, in another field, using some devices that simulated some of the more typical types of VI. It was pretty revealing. If you are really intereted in this, mobility trainers (professionals who teach people with vision loss how to move about in the world) have these devices, and you can simulate this yoruself.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Guest
For me, I love CSS and XHTML layouts – but I don’t really see what the point of creating an inverted CSS style, as most users that I know who are visually impaired will either have this turned on my default on their PC or Mac, or they’ll hate it!!
And using an inverted stylesheet in this mode means they have to turn off their own settings!!
Paul Ely, someone using a screen magnifier would have to opt into a zoom layout, just as someone not using a screen magnifier would. And it is not at all clear that a zoom layout that never exceeded the sides of the screen would be harmful to a user of assistive technology. So the zoom layout makes everything 15% bigger and the device makes it a further 50% bigger. I mean, you can’t just dial back your device to a lower magnification?
So no, in fact, using a zoom layout causes no affront whatsoever to 508.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Dagmar Noll
This article recommends doing nothing to images in this zoom process.
I am currently struggling with a way to make images of maps as clear as I can for anyone with less than excellent vision. Maps are very detailed, and while I am providing text information alongside the map, many individuals are very visual learners, and a blurry map with a text description isn’t going to do them a whole lot of good. Why not provide an option to a larger and clear image?
49 Reader Comments
Back to the ArticleJoe Clark
Actually, no, the RNIB does not “recommend the use of clear print instead of large print.” The document (a PDF) says: “the RNIB advocate[s] clear print as an alternative to large print…. For many partially-sighted people, well-designed print information at 12 or 14 point is satisfactory.” Nobody’s replacing anything here.
They then go on to queer the deal by essentially recommending you use New Century Schoolbook bold (or, I suppose, “Universe” bold, whatever that is). If that isn’t horrific enough for you, you can always follow their recommendation to use Arial bold without italics. By the way, what are “ornate” typefaces? I have a vague idea, but the last time I saw one of those was a tattoo on a guy’s back in blackletter.
We are, in any event, discussing Web sites and not print.
I would be rather surprised if the RNIB, known for its truculence and touchiness about Web accessibility (and for resolutely questionable advice for same), actually has verifiable research to back up the eyebrow-raising claims in this document.
Vlastimil Svoboda
Tea Bore: > Two buttons, ‘change colors’ and ‘change layout’ in the top left corner might be a good solution.
These functions should provide browser or OS on any page. Why implement “low-vision support” to every website? The only way is to improve browser and OS. Some applications do that even today (Opera, IE with Web Accessibility Toolbar etc.) so, why not the others?
Jens Meiert
I agree to Chris Hester’s post [1], he just takes the words out of my mouth – several things need to be differentiated, be it existing features or alternative workarounds.
Setting up a preferences page must of course be subject of further testing.
[1] http://alistapart.com/discuss/lowvision/#c9807
Steer Ethelston
I’ve skimmmed through the comments quickly, but I didn’t see anything about my query. If we have a single column but fixed width layout, like many of the ‘current’ designs, to what extent do we need ‘zoom’ layouts?
If someone has poor vision, I’m guessing they’d use a lower resolution to make everything bigger? In that instance the single column would be nearly full width, and the only thing in danger would be a horizontal navigation bar…
Or have I missed something somewhere?
Paul Eley
If a user has standard assistive technologies installed, the feature in this article results in a “double zoom”. A violation of s508 since it constitutes interfering with an existing assistive technology.
Jeff McGinnis
I’m glad to see discussion seems to be expanding to address the vast majority of people with visual impairments (VI). Most people with VI have some vision. In fact, only about 10% of the blind/VI population in the U.S. are totally blind. And yet most of the talk about acessibility seems to assume that users have no vision.
I wonder how many web designers have really spent time watching how someone with a visual impairment, or any disability, works at a computer. My guess, not so many. A field trip to an agenty in your community that work with people with blindness and VI’s might be worth doing. Go see how someone really uses the computer, and what kind of technology is really being used.
It’s great to read about studies and best practices, but nothing replaces experience. And just like any usability study, people don’t always do what you might expect, they do what is effective for them.
By the way, I once did some training, in another field, using some devices that simulated some of the more typical types of VI. It was pretty revealing. If you are really intereted in this, mobility trainers (professionals who teach people with vision loss how to move about in the world) have these devices, and you can simulate this yoruself.
Jeff
Guest
For me, I love CSS and XHTML layouts – but I don’t really see what the point of creating an inverted CSS style, as most users that I know who are visually impaired will either have this turned on my default on their PC or Mac, or they’ll hate it!!
And using an inverted stylesheet in this mode means they have to turn off their own settings!!
Joe Clark
Paul Ely, someone using a screen magnifier would have to opt into a zoom layout, just as someone not using a screen magnifier would. And it is not at all clear that a zoom layout that never exceeded the sides of the screen would be harmful to a user of assistive technology. So the zoom layout makes everything 15% bigger and the device makes it a further 50% bigger. I mean, you can’t just dial back your device to a lower magnification?
So no, in fact, using a zoom layout causes no affront whatsoever to 508.
Dagmar Noll
This article recommends doing nothing to images in this zoom process.
I am currently struggling with a way to make images of maps as clear as I can for anyone with less than excellent vision. Maps are very detailed, and while I am providing text information alongside the map, many individuals are very visual learners, and a blurry map with a text description isn’t going to do them a whole lot of good. Why not provide an option to a larger and clear image?
Dagmar