good examples for disability and web 2.0??

19 Dec 2008 - 5:48am
5 years ago
17 replies
1601 reads
Maria De Monte
2008

Hello folks,

talking about web 2.0 and its moving toward a 3.0 era, I've been questioning myself about how web 2.0 has prompted accessibility problems by people with disabilities. It seems to me, in fact, that disability matters are still solved with classic solutions.

However, I think the possibilites given by web 2.0, and the new coding languages which came up with it, give huge possibilities towards shaping web services to solve disability concerns in web surfing.

Have you any good examples of web 2.0 applications with strong disability concerns?

Thank you all,

enjoy holidays week...

cheers,

Maria

Comments

19 Dec 2008 - 5:53am
Steve Baty
2009

Maria,

You might like to take a look at some of the work Derek Featherstone has
been doing in this area. His presentation to Web Direction South in
September can be found here:
http://www.webdirections.org/resources/jeremy-keith-derek-featherstone-web-apps-ajax-kung-fu-meets-accessibility-feng-shui/

A Google search for 'derek featherstone web 2.0' will give you a bunch more
examples from him, or check out his site at:
http://boxofchocolates.ca/

Regards
Steve

2008/12/19 Maria De Monte <mtdemonte at yahoo.it>

> Hello folks,
>
> talking about web 2.0 and its moving toward a 3.0 era, I've been
> questioning myself about how web 2.0 has prompted accessibility problems by
> people with disabilities. It seems to me, in fact, that disability matters
> are still solved with classic solutions.
>
> However, I think the possibilites given by web 2.0, and the new coding
> languages which came up with it, give huge possibilities towards shaping web
> services to solve disability concerns in web surfing.
>
> Have you any good examples of web 2.0 applications with strong disability
> concerns?
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal Consultant | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061
292 | E: stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty

Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.

19 Dec 2008 - 7:17am
Maria De Monte
2008

Hi Steve, I took a fast look at the links you sent me. Really
interesting examples, I'll keep an eye on these skilled guys, thank
you.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

19 Dec 2008 - 1:23pm
Adrian Howard
2005

On 19 Dec 2008, at 10:48, Maria De Monte wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> talking about web 2.0 and its moving toward a 3.0 era, I've been
> questioning myself about how web 2.0 has prompted accessibility
> problems by people with disabilities. It seems to me, in fact, that
> disability matters are still solved with classic solutions.
>
> However, I think the possibilites given by web 2.0, and the new
> coding languages which came up with it, give huge possibilities
> towards shaping web services to solve disability concerns in web
> surfing.
>
> Have you any good examples of web 2.0 applications with strong
> disability concerns?
[snip]

You might find some of the AbilityNet Accessibility 2.0 Podcasts of
interest. See <http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/newsarticle68>.

There's some nice stuff about things like EasyYouTube (a YouTube
player aimed at folk with learning disabilities), accessibiity of
web2.0 apps like twitter, ARIA support in screen readers, etc.

There was one talk (sorry - the speaker escapes me at the moment) that
introduced me to the interesting idea that while some web apps are
written in a way that is inaccessible for use for some groups - they
also help access in other areas.

e.g. while many of Flickr's forms and widgets are inaccessible - they
make it much more likely that folk tag, describe, etc. the photos -
which in turn makes the resources more accessible.

Not listened to them all yet - but some are quite interesting.

Adrian

21 Dec 2008 - 1:48am
DampeS8N
2008

Ajax != web 2.0

1.0 = content by web authors.
2.0 = content by website users.
3.0 = constructs by users and software as a service.

So, for web 2.0 there shouldn't be any extra concerns for
disabilities, but accessibility on the web has been a joke for much
longer than the X.0 concept has existed.

Since you likely mean how to do Ajax in a way that is accessible, the
simple answer is, if you think it would need a work around to be
accessible for the blind, you prolly shouldn't do it for the
sighted.

What made the web popular in the first place was the ease in which it
could be used. There were all of a handful of paradigms users needed
to grasp, and really only two to use it. The URL and the link.

Today, software on the web is just as bad as software everywhere
else. Flashy interfaces and wiz-bang ajaxy no-page-loady devices that
act odd due to dubious javascript frameworks like mootools and jquery.

So the short answer is to STOP using ajax and flash for the sake of
ajax and flash. Need an uploader that can multi-select files and
batch upload? Then use a tiny flash tool.

And don't screw with what makes the web easy in the first place.

This is why I say, if you have to think of a new way to do
accessibility, you likely messed your page up for everyone else too.

Just remember, cool and usable don't often go hand-in-hand.
Sometimes you can make something usable look cool, but you rarely can
make something cool usable.

Will

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

21 Dec 2008 - 1:52am
Christian Crumlish
2006

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, William Brall <dampee at earthlink.net>wrote:

> Ajax != web 2.0
>
> 1.0 = content by web authors.
> 2.0 = content by website users.
> 3.0 = constructs by users and software as a service.
>

according to whom?

i've heard numerous definitions of web 3.0, none of them entirely convincing
(ditto for 2.0).

-x-

19 Dec 2008 - 7:31am
Atul Thanvi
2008

Thanks for the links.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

21 Dec 2008 - 5:56pm
SemanticWill
2007

2.0 the social web
3.0 the semantic web
4.0 the self-aware web

will evans
emotive architect &
hedonic designer
will at semanticfoundry.com
617.281.1281
twitter: semanticwill
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: wkevans4
skype: semanticwill
_________________________
Sent via iPhone

On Dec 21, 2008, at 1:52 AM, "Christian Crumlish" <xian at well.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, William Brall
> <dampee at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
>> Ajax != web 2.0
>>
>> 1.0 = content by web authors.
>> 2.0 = content by website users.
>> 3.0 = constructs by users and software as a service.
>>
>
> according to whom?
>
> i've heard numerous definitions of web 3.0, none of them entirely
> convincing
> (ditto for 2.0).
>
> -x-
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

21 Dec 2008 - 6:13pm
SemanticWill
2007

Oh. And
5.0 The Singularity

will evans
emotive architect &
hedonic designer
will at semanticfoundry.com
617.281.1281
twitter: semanticwill
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: wkevans4
skype: semanticwill
_________________________
Sent via iPhone

On Dec 21, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Will Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2.0 the social web
> 3.0 the semantic web
> 4.0 the self-aware web
>
>
>
> will evans
> emotive architect &
> hedonic designer
> will at semanticfoundry.com
> 617.281.1281
> twitter: semanticwill
> aim: semanticwill
> gtalk: wkevans4
> skype: semanticwill
> _________________________
> Sent via iPhone
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 1:52 AM, "Christian Crumlish" <xian at well.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, William Brall
>> <dampee at earthlink.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Ajax != web 2.0
>>>
>>> 1.0 = content by web authors.
>>> 2.0 = content by website users.
>>> 3.0 = constructs by users and software as a service.
>>>
>>
>> according to whom?
>>
>> i've heard numerous definitions of web 3.0, none of them entirely
>> convincing
>> (ditto for 2.0).
>>
>> -x-
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

22 Dec 2008 - 12:16am
DampeS8N
2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

While wikipedia does make mention of ajax and other richer web
offerings as being part of many web 2.0 sites. It says just that. It
is a part of many web 2.0 sites. Not the definition of web 2.0.

2.0 sites, from the perspective of wikipedia, are what I said. Also
what the other Will said. Although he said it in one word, where I
used simpler language and dumbed it down some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0

3.0 is less clear. Will and I grabbed a portion of the general
consensus on this one as well. 4 and 5 are all conjecture. Wishful
thinking.

But I think Will is right, that self-aware web is likely the next
step.

First output only, then input too, then tools by users (igoogle and
so on) along with the semantic web, which may or may-not come through
things like microformats. Part of this is the web becoming more and
more ubiquitous.

Semantic web will not be so earthshattering for PCs, but when your
fridge actually does a good job of ordering the food you use off the
internet, you'll be glad it exists.

This kind of technology is around the corner, what was tedious, with
barcode scanners and other such effort, will be streamlined and use
RFID and will be more passive.

Included in this is the ability to share your contact info with
people just by shaking hands. And so on. Real Sci-fi.

You'll see a return to the terminal. Massively distributed
computing. Your phone will be a portal to systems far more powerful
than your phone could be, or better, your phone will be part of a
global processor and idle time will be spent doing work.

The fact that your fridge will learn what you eat and order more of
it without you telling it to, is getting close to web 4.0, but what
Will means is not AI like we have today. He means an awakening in the
vein of Asimov.

I want it, but expecting it and calling it 4.0 is like in the 60s
when people thought we'd all have flying cars today.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

21 Dec 2008 - 6:16pm
Casey Edgeton
2008

and then 6.0 is The Matrix

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>wrote:

> Oh. And
> 5.0 The Singularity
>
>

21 Dec 2008 - 10:56am
R Sengers
2008

You might want to take a look at webAIM.org (a good resource for
accessibility). There have been some discussions on Web 2.0/ajax/etc
in the email discussion group. Maybe search for terms like "ajax"
or "ria" or "web 2.0" in the archives at
http://webaim.org/discussion/archives.php

Also some articles on RIA:
http://webaim.org/techniques/ajax/
http://webaim.org/techniques/aria/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

26 Dec 2008 - 9:52am
SemanticWill
2007

Web 7.0 The Schismatrix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismatrix

On Dec 21, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Casey Edgeton wrote:

> and then 6.0 is The Matrix
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Will Evans
> <will at semanticfoundry.com>wrote:
>
>> Oh. And
>> 5.0 The Singularity
>>
>>

26 Dec 2008 - 2:50pm
DampeS8N
2008

All your purchases could be automated. If it can't figure out that
you like to keep certain things on hand. (There would be sensors
either at the front door or in your pantry as well) You'll still be
able to parse lists of what you have bought in the past. And more
importantly, What is to stop it from making comparisons to what other
people buy?

Think about it as Amazon's predictions for food. Or OKCupid like
filtering.

If you could order it online, and have it delivered the next day? Or,
if it supersedes supermarkets, That effort could be shifted to deliver
it to you the same day. Like ordering Pizza.

In fact. Why can't you order take-out through it also?

Perhaps building it, ready made, into the fridge is the unlikely
part. The kit would come with s bunch of wireless RFID sniffers you
can place in a variety of places. In the fridge, in the pantry,
near/in the trash, and either software for your PC or a TIVO like box
you can hook up to a TV. Or it might have the screen embedded in it.

Technically speaking, the only thing preventing this from happening
RIGHT NOW is a lack of RFID infusion in the market.

Clearly, something like this could be used for a lot more than food.
But I think cutting out that regular trip to the market for all this
junk would be a good start.

Also, stickers on fruit and veggies could account for them.

Weighing food would be more accurate, but that requires more
hardware. It'll happen, just not right away.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

26 Dec 2008 - 1:27pm
Marc Resnick
2006

Perhaps we are getting off track on the original question about
disability, but I think we will see aware sites well before we see
aware refrigerators. It may be easy for the fridge to know that the
milk is running low (RFID and weight sensor would take care of that),
that I always use milk (a simple analysis of my history could mine
this insight), and that it should be re-ordered as soon as it gets
down to 1 quart left (time series analysis of when I self-ordered).

But I suspect it will take a lot longer for the fridge to smell the
oranges I buy to know how I like them. Or to predict what I want to
cook for my hot date this weekend. And if I have to go to the store
to buy the oranges, as well as the 50% of my groceries that are not
regular purchases, what good does it do me for my milk, rice, and
coffee purchases to be automated?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

28 Dec 2008 - 9:04am
Jennison Mark A...
2008

Maria et al,

One of the big challenges is the fact that many assistive
technologies, like screen readers, are still catching up in terms of
their ability to communicate what is happening on RIA screens to
users (e.g., partial content updates VS full page reloads). Also,
keep in mind that a component of what makes a Web 2.0 application
"rich," is the visual experience that it delivers, which in itself
can pose challenges on the design/development side, when you are
trying to figure out a non-visual means of communicating the same
thing, such as when using a slider or gauge widget. Finally, while
unintentional, Web 2.0 apps seem to lean toward mouse-driven
interactions which do not always have keyboard equivalents available
(e.g., fly-out menus, drag and drop).

Coincidental to this conversation, I have just set-up a group on
LinkedIn for those who either already build Web 2.0 applications that
take accessibility into account during development/testing or for
those who are interested in learning more about what it takes to make
these apps as accessible as possible. Part of what will hopefully make
this group useful is that users with disabilities themselves are being
encouraged to join in on the conversations. The URL for the group is
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/1605077

Happy '09

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

29 Dec 2008 - 6:47am
gatesix
2008

Thanks for the links.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

31 Dec 2008 - 6:52pm
DampeS8N
2008

In the end. I think many things that ajax sites do, are very very hard
to do right for screen readers. And in many cases, are pointless to do
for screen reader.

This is why I am a HUGE proponent of separate interfaces for screen
readers.

At the end of the day, you aren't doing interaction design for them
if you aren't providing the right interface for them. And often the
BEST one is nothing like the one you give sighted users. It most
likely doesn't even have the same pages. And it certainly doesn't
have to.

People build new interfaces for blackberries and such, why not for
readers?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36539

Syndicate content Get the feed