For Tim - DDA

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote

Thanks for that, quite interesting - but I didn't notice any question that the 'screen reader' software (JAWS) may be incompatible with the other systems or that there may be a problem converting anything to speech.

Our previous discussion related to which part of the total system has the responsibility (under the DDA) to convert some content into speech. There are three main parts : the 'website' (eg the one that you were trying to browse previously), the 'browser' (eg Internet Explorer) and the 'screen reader' (I don't know which one you were using). In the normal course of events, the 'website' provides the content, the 'browser' converts that computer data into an audio-visual experience, and the 'screen reader' converts (some of) the visual part of that experience into speech.

It appeared you believe that it is NOT the responsibility of the 'browser' to convert plain text into speech - otherwise you would have talked about suing the 'browser' vendor (Microsoft!) under the DDA, rather than having gone out and bought a (rather expensive) 'screen reader'. It also appeared you believe that it is NOT the responsibility of the 'screen reader' to convert words embedded in graphics into speech - because you seemed to consider that the 'website' should change this instead.

So, what DOES the DDA say? Does it specify minimum requirements for each of the 'website' / 'browser' / 'screen reader'? Why aren't they *all* responsible for accessibility? [If they were, then there'd be no need for 'screen readers' at all, because the 'website' and 'browser' would already have the facility to convert to speech / etc!]

Let's imagine that a particular 'screen reader' can cope with most words, but that there are a few words that it cannot convert to speech. Suppose that "xylophone" is one of these. Does this mean that website designers need to steer clear of the word "xylophone", or be accused of breaching the DDA because a particular 'screen reader' cannot cope with part of their content? Similarly, let's imagine that a particular 'screen reader' cannot cope with converting words embedded within graphics into speech. Does this mean that website designers need to steer clear of using words embedded within graphics, or be accused of breaching the DDA because a particular 'screen reader' cannot cope with part of their content?

It seems to me that it's unfair to always blame just the website designer, when the 'browser' and the 'screen reader' also have very big parts to play... [Unless, of course, there *are* specific minimum requirements for each of these in turn within the DDA.]

>

As you've probably gathered by now, I don't know the legal niceties, but here are a few more comments.

If it were possible to convert such graphics this would force all these sites requiring the copying of words in fuzzy pictures to eliminate bots to come up with other ideas, (which might not be a bad idea.)>

That would of course be the ideal, and if Microsoft did this, which I'm sure they could, and have deliberately emasculated their Narrator software* to avoid more monopoly accusations.

Web site designers have published guidelines, and they should follow them.

*If you've never used Narrator, and you have XP, simply push Windows logo key and U together to start it up.

Tiddy Ogg.

>Thanks for that, quite interesting - but I didn't notice

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote

Ah, OK. When you said before: "This is a government site and should abide by the government's own legislation", I had assumed you must know what the legislation says!

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote

Ermm, it *is* possible. The London congestion-charging system takes pictures ("graphics") from cameras and converts part into the ("plain-text") licence-plate of the car passing by.

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote

They could simply tell the US Govt (monopolies committee) that they *had* to add the extra functionality, to comply with UK law!

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote

Let those that published the guidelines, follow them. But why should other designers, who had nothing to do with the guidelines, follow them just because they were published by different website designers?

The DDA says you should take "reasonable" steps to ensure that your facilities are accessible to disabled people.

For example, you have a picture on a website with some text in it, you can tell a screen reader what the text is by doing

Screen readers would normally spell out words they don't understand, but in any case, if the screen reader hasn't heard of the word, there is a good chance a lot of your readers haven't heard of it either, so you might want to consider another one.

As I explained above, it is pretty easy to deal with text embedded within graphics by adding alt tags to the images, so there is no excuse for not doing so.

At the same time, the rules were changed to require a specific font on your number plate to make it easier for these cameras to read the plates. We are not yet at the stage where computers can recognise everything that it put their way.

Were the rules really changed? Has there not in effect always been a prescribed typeface? These fancy-font plates favoured by poseurs have, I think, always been officially unacceptable but perhaps it's only now that steps are being taken to enforce the rules. These loonies ought to have been prosecuted from the start for the offence of failing to display a valid number plate. Is not one of the penalties available for that offence confiscation of the vehicle?

If you look at some older cars with "normal" reg plates, you will notice that the font they use is a bit wider than the official font used in new plates.

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

So why doesn't that apply to the 'browsers'? If it did, then they would need to have the functionality of the 'screen readers' - in which event the 'screen readers' (as third-party software) would not be required!

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Of course you can. Equally, the 'browser' software could easily incorporate some 'screen reader' code to make the 'browser' more accessible, and negate the need for separate 'screen reader' software. If the website contravenes the DDA by not including the alt tags, then surely the 'browser' must also contravene the DDA by not including 'screen reader' code?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Is that functionality *required* by the DDA to be a part of all 'screen readers'?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

What a cop-out!

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

As I explained above, it is pretty easy for the browser to deal with text-speech conversions, by adding 'screen reader' code to the browser. So is there also "no excuse for not doing so" here, too?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Can they therefore drive through the congestion zone for free?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

One problem with the above solution, is that it requires the alt tags to be added for **every** image on

**every** website. That'll come to *many* thousands of strings of text. If the 'screen reader' could do a proper job of "reading the screen" (including words in graphics), then that would be just one "hit" and **all** the images on **all** websites would be covered.

So, you need to compare "many thousand occurences of a pretty easy solution" against "a single occurence of a trickier solution".

Are you *sure* that the first solution is best, overall? :-(

Especially when they are deliberately obscured. There is scanning software, optical character recognition, and maybe it's possible to download this particular page and convert it to te xt thusly, but editing it, which here is required, will be impossible.

Tiddy Ogg.

Well every image where is presence is essential to understanding the content of the site. If the image is just there to make the page look prettier, you don't need an alt tag, and in fact, you should not have one.

Well screen readers can't read all words in all graphics. The technology just isn't good enough for that yet. And even where they could possibly read the words, they wouldn't necessarily be able to read them out in the correct order.

Also, alt tags don't just cover pictures of words. You might have for example a picture of a telephone before a string of numbers to tell people that the string of numbers is a telephone number. You might then have a picture of a fax machine next to another string of numbers to tell people that this particular string of numbers is a fax number. There is no way that a screen reader could recognise a picture of a telephone and tell people about it, so you definitely need alt tags here.

Yes