So we should make accessible web sites, providing alt attribute for img elements and all other stuff. But although this effects comparatively lesser number of users, I could not find any information to the issues that effects each and every user.
Let me explain. If we were to simplify matters by saying that web sites should provide the most revelant information in the least amount of time, would I be wrong? Given this axion if I were to
1 - Want to download the offline version of Acrobat Reader X. There is nothing, and I mean nothing on the site http://www.adobe.com/products/reader.html which provides a hint, link or anything to that. I have to use google to find ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/
2 - Again trying to find the offline version of Google Chrome at http://www.google.com/chrome/ . Nothing there that may lead to http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?standalone=1
3 - So Internet Explorer has an addon called Web Developer Tool Bar. It is safe to assume I will find it at http://www.ieaddons.com/in/. No such luck. Have to google it again and find it at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e06cbe-4940-4218-b75d-b8856fced535
4 - Trying to get the the Firebug addon from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/web-development/. Successfully navigated to web development. You can use "view all recetally added" or "view all top downloads" or "view all top rated". What if you want to view all for web development. Offcouse you sue the search!
These are just some of the situations. I guess my question would be that are these not accessibility issues?
If the issues you are are describing apply equally to say sighted users as to blind users using a screenreader, then no, they are not considered to be accessibility issues, but are perhaps broader usability issues.
If, for example, the adobe web site had no link at all to the offline version, and all users, sighted or not, had to do extra work to find it, that's a usability issue.
But if the web site had a graphic image that sighted users could see was a link to the download, but users using a screenreader did not get this information (eg. because the graphic had no ALT text, or the image was not operable via keyboard), then it's an accessibility issue.
There's certainly overlap between these; and it's often the case that usability issues are harder for disabled users to work around; but generally accessibility refers to cases where the design of a site confronts a user with a disability with additional barriers or challenges beyond those that users without a disability have to deal with.
I think it depends on your definition. Some definitions describe accessibility assuming that the correct website is known and is concerned only with the accessibility of that website. Others do describe the ease of users finding the required resource on the Web, which would encapsulate your issues above.
There are two reasons why accessibility is a failure on the web, and for these failures the technology HTML is to blame for both.
1) HTML is not self-validating. SGML does not have a direct self-validating subset and all versions of HTML < 5 are subsets of SGML. HTML5 is based upon a specification document not vested in any computer language, so its perhaps more lost.
XML does have a direct self-validating subset called schema. There are three widely recognized schema languages for XML: Schematron, Relax NG, W3C XML Schema (official).
By self-validating I mean that the language itself can be called to validate its instances without external assistance from the local parser. Without a self-validating component there is no assurance of integrity of a document's structure, and therefore there is no integrity of accessibility. In a world where web browsers will parse anything without regard for the proper well-formedness of a structure then by practice everything is acceptable completely without regard for accessibility.
2) Less obvious and more devastating is that HTML does not understand its own structure. There are two levels of structure as defined in the HTML specifications: block-level elements and inline elements. According to the specifications the difference between these two structure levels is vested primarily in the visual intention of the elements' presentation, which contradicts other language in the specifications in that HTML is a data structure and not a presentational language.
Furthermore, two levels of structure is insufficient and the actual structural definition of HTML elements exceeds a two level structure anyways without inherently stating such. For example in HTML many block-level elements may contain a 'p' element representing a paragraph, but such an element may not contain other block level elements although many other block level elements may certainly contain block level children.
At a minimum a three level structure is required to describe natural language in a manner consumable to a human audience equally without need for further accessibility assistance. In accordance with the structure defined in Mail Markup Language there would be:
- Complex blocks
- Simple blocks
- Inline elements
Complex blocks are purely structural in that they may contain simple blocks, or in some cases other complex block elements, but will never contain inline elements or text nodes. Simple blocks will never contain complex block or simple block elements, but may contain inline elements or text nodes. Inline elements be either singletons containing nothing or will contain text nodes, but inline elements will never contain other elements.
Such a structure is self-sufficient in properly arranging and structuring content so that accessibility requirements are met immediately in a manner where violations of accessibility requirements are more costly and complex than simple conformance to the given structure. Once a sufficient structure is in place all that is missing is the meta data supplied via descriptive and well-known element names, and in some cases additional extraneous content via attributes.
If either of these two items are missing a minimum baseline for accessibility cannot be assured. When they are both missing, as with the web, then accessibility is likely a lost cause and immediate failure.
Web accessibility
Website is made up of different contents like images, texts, videos, button, etc, with combination of different colors.
- Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web.
- Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can contribute to the Web.
- Web accessibility also benefits others, including older people with changing abilities due to aging.
The main theme of web accessibility is creating a website which is accessible to every one. After designing a website it is essential to check the website ADA compliance, whether it is accessible and how much it is user friendly for disabled people.
