Last Monday I had the opportunity to visit the Test Partners, after an invite by Steve Green, to attend an afternoon of screen reader demonstration. I’m exceptionally glad I went, and it’s a shame I’ve been too busy to mention it sooner.

Firstly, the session concentrated on a specific sub-group of internet users - the blind. Steve made a point of saying that with any project you need to decide who your target audience is as measures to help one group of users may be mutually exclusive to helping another. As such, he stated clearly that within this session (and my feedback below) that the techniques and problems raised are relating to those specifically who are visually impaired and using screen readers.

However, in my opinion, a site that is easy and understandable to navigate for screen reader users probably does go a long way to making this whole web experience easier for a range of people with varying difficulties and user needs.

We ran through JAWS operation. JAWS in particular because it has the market share of screen reader users.

From testing on live sites, it became clear pretty quickly that headers and lists were really, if not the most, important. Properly used headers (semantically correct) give an easy way to navigate to prominent areas of the page and also give instant context.

The logic behind putting navigation buttons into lists also became ever so clear when you hear JAWS inform you that there is a list of 6 links coming up. Not only does that sound like a navigation, you can easily be ready for how far into said list you’re probably going to have to look to get to the section you want (somewhere in a dozen or a hundred links?).

<p>The reason these two things are particularly important is because of the way a blind user creates his or her visual model of how the site works.  They can’t just glance at what’s coming or where something is.  They must make a top-down mental image of what’s available on the page by running through the entire document (unless they already know the site and can rely on it being the same as the previous visit).</p>
<p>This method of mental navigation shows why consistency and predictability are really vital.  I’m not saying that every site should be laid out in an identical way, but subsections of a site should follow a template defined by the initial landing page and navigation should be pretty standardised.  </p>
<p>Thinking about this does remind me of a reason why I like <a target="_blank" href="http://microformats.org">microformats</a> and think they may have some potential as accessibility aids and therefore why I’d like to see them utilised within something like JAWS.  </p>
<p>Microformats are a way of standardising more specific elements within a page, and I’m sure it would be useful to some if they could have JAWS announce to them that the page they have just landed on has 4 headings, 12 links, <em>a contact and 3 calendar events</em>.</p>
<p>The reason I mention microformats in particular is because it’s something I’ve been giving some thought to for a while in direct association with accessibility and think I’d like to elaborate on in the future.  Feedback in this area is especially welcome.</p>
<p>For me though, the most surprising thing was being told that by default, most SR users <strong>don’t</strong> read title, acronym and abbreviation attributes!  A majority of users find it annoying to be given the extra (and often superfluous) information.  The lesson learnt here is to make sure that everything that is important to the understanding of a document should be in the actual page copy, rather than hidden away in tag attributes.</p>
<p>There were many other bits and pieces of interest - from reminding us all that display:none <strong>is</strong> adhered to by JAWS to writing good copy can go a long, long way, and then that access keys (uh oh) aren’t particularly utilised or useful because most sites don’t offer them so they cannot be relied upon.</p>
<p>The thing is - JAWS is a bit smarter than I’ve given it credit for.  Saying that though, from the feedback from John, a vast majority of users aren’t advanced users and probably aren’t toggling features on and off to get the most out of a site.  </p>
<p>So, there’s two things there - users probably need more training, or at least opportunities to learn how to use websites on their own in some way, but equally as publishers to the web we should be making the best effort to present information - and that’s ultimately what we’re all doing after all - as clearly and as simply as possible.</p>
<p>Web standardistas will already be doing this I’m sure and rolling their eyes at being told yet again, but it’s important not to forget <strong>why</strong> you’re doing it.  It’s not just about being <em>correct</em> for correct’s sake; it’s about giving everyone a <strong>fair chance</strong>.

On Saturday I got to go on a trip to Oxford. I’ve only been there once before, and that was at night for a work function so I didn’t really get to see it. It’s a pretty place. Steve and I went along to a little lunch at “The Big Bang” that John Oxton organised with various geeks. The food was great. The Big Bang is a place that just does sausage and mash - I, of course, went for one of the veggie options (mushroom and garlic, I believe) and it was yum. We stuck around for drinks down “The Friar’s Entry” (yes, I know) and yeah… generally chatted about all things geek and custard.

Last night was 20×2. I genuinely remember little about my slot, bar the panic. The problem was I had a keynote presentation, and I thought I’d be able to run it from my laptop - but I had to have the slides on a different one, and my notes from my version on Steve’s mac - so I was trying to operate the laptop, the remote and hold a mic and speak…blah, blah, blah. Yeah. Too much tech., not enough nerve. Plus, the lights were bright onto the stage, so I couldn’t really make eye contact with anyone - which tends to help me, and I couldn’t see the warning lights - so I probably over-ran badly. Argh! Why do I do these things to myself?

Oh well.

<p>Other than that, I had a really good night.  I got to meet a few more faces, and everyone else’s slots were really, really cool.  A proper variety - artists, musicians, comedians, bloggers… all kinds, and all surprisingly different in their take on the question.

As if by magic, Jeffery Zeldman yesterday published an article about print style sheets, which just happened to be what I was tangentally ranting about in the car on the way to work the other morning. Most of us support printers about as badly as we support screen readers, and I don’t think the two devices are that far removed - both are mostly “out of sight, out of mind”.

What I was more specifically complaining about was screen readers and their general lack of support from the web community.

I’m under the firm belief that screen reader support is rubbish for two reasons:

• None of us use them (”us” being the general web dev community).

<li>Screen readers are expensive, clunky and support the specs even less than some of our most hated normal browsers (and then have to work with browsers that don’t support the specs well either).</li>
</ul>
<p>Because of the first reason - we’re not pushing screen readers to be developed well.  Why isn’t there a good, free, open source screen reader?  “We” don’t need one.</p>
<p>I’d really like to encourage people to start trying out some of the screen readers (most will run in a trial/demo mode for a period of time).   If a few more of us incorporated screen readers into our testing (if you’re not already, why the hell not?) and then perhaps started badgering those developing these products to improve them, we could have some decent products for everyone.  </p>
<p>Remember the spread firefox campaigns and “web standards” pushes that worked so well?  We desperately need one of these for screen readers, and to be frank, it’s going to take people giving a damn about others to happen because this is an area outside most of our personal uses.  We also need developers who are willing to put some time into working on new open source products that can be used by, and improved by, everyone.</p>
<p>How can we do this?  Do you think it isn’t worth it?  Feedback people.

20×2 is an ongoing project that exists to showcase the creativity that lurks in each of us. Writers, musicians, filmmakers, web geeks and other bon vivants are asked to take two minutes each to answer the question of the day. The results can be as varied as the emotions and reactions they evoke.

20×2 is coming to London next month, and I’ve been invited to do a spot! It’s probably a moment of insanity on my part to agree to do it, but it is only 2 minutes, and I did say I wanted to do more “things”.

Basically, 20 people are each given the same question and fill a 2 minute slot based upon this question, and you can do or say whatever you like!

This session’s question is “Where Am I?”. I don’t have the foggiest idea what to do yet - so I’m taking suggestions. What do you think?

20×2 is going to be in London on the 19th November at Madame JoJo’s in Soho.

p>Just a quicky reminder.

This Saturday (30th) is Drew and I’s Microformat vEvent social in London. You can find all the details and who else is stopping by at the upcoming.org event page.

As I said before - it’s just a low-key social for those in the Microformats loop. So no specific plans or pressure - stop by for a drink is all we ask.

<p>I’ve chatted about it to a couple people, and some have said they’d like a more formal event in the future.  So… if the scene looks like it’d be good for it I may well try to organise something (and already have a couple of speaker volunteers).  Watch this space, eh?</p>
<p>Also - yes, it’s true.  I’m off to <a target="_blank" href="http://upcoming.org/event/90305/">SXSW</a> in March, over in Austin, Texas!  Can you say <em>excited</em>?