Webmaster forum - Accessibility and User Agents

Author

Accessibility and User Agents

Doug

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

I'm learning about Web site accessibility and would like to know the
possible user agent names for assistive devices.

Is there a listing somewhere?

Thanks, Doug

KarlCore

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Oct 25, 10:58 am, "Doug" <dgeist...@snet.net> wrote:
> I'm learning about Web site accessibility and would like to know the
> possible user agent names for assistive devices.
>
> Is there a listing somewhere?
>
> Thanks, Doug

UA Strings for AT will commonly identify themselves as IE, so the user
doesn't get hemmed up by lame browser-detection scripts. Not only
that, but many AT are not UAs at all. Instead, they read what is on
screen in the active window. Right now, my screen reader is reading
what is on screen in Firefox, because Firefox is the active window.
But if I switched to IE, it would begin reading what is on screen in
IE. Then if I switched to Outlook, it would read that.

In other words, don't try to detect AT, because you can't do so
reliably. Instead, just make your site accessible.

Karl

Andy Dingley

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On 25 Oct, 15:58, "Doug" <dgeist...@snet.net> wrote:
> I'm learning about Web site accessibility and would like to know the
> possible user agent names for assistive devices.

Then stop trying to do such a pointless exercise forthwith.
Accessibility has _NOTHING_ to do with sniffing around in user-agent
strings.

(If you haven't already, start by reading the Joe Clark book)

Doug

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Thanks Karl. I was more curious as to what assistive devices might currently
be accessing our Web site and I thought I'd be able to determine that via
server logs, but apparently that isn't the case.

Thanks again,
Doug

"KarlCore" <karl@karlcore.com> wrote in message
news:1193325436.008907.172400@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 10:58 am, "Doug" <dgeist...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> UA Strings for AT will commonly identify themselves as IE, so the user
> doesn't get hemmed up by lame browser-detection scripts. Not only
> that, but many AT are not UAs at all. Instead, they read what is on
> screen in the active window. Right now, my screen reader is reading
> what is on screen in Firefox, because Firefox is the active window.
> But if I switched to IE, it would begin reading what is on screen in
> IE. Then if I switched to Outlook, it would read that.
>
> In other words, don't try to detect AT, because you can't do so
> reliably. Instead, just make your site accessible.
>
> Karl
>

KarlCore

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Oct 25, 12:45 pm, "Doug" <dgeist...@snet.net> wrote:
> Thanks Karl. I was more curious as to what assistive devices might currently
> be accessing our Web site and I thought I'd be able to determine that via
> server logs, but apparently that isn't the case.
>
> Thanks again,
> Doug
>

No problem, Doug.
In a way, it would be wonderful to be able to put a quantitative
measure to the number of disabled users accessing a site. I've seen a
lot of numbers thrown around in an attempt to convince people to make
accessible sites. Unfortunately, most of the time, those numbers are
cooked in some way, and I find that disingenuous and in most cases
very transparent. In cases like that, I feel it harms the credibility
of the person arguing for accessibility.

Obviously as an Accessibility Consultant, my mind has already been
made up regarding what part of the debate I fall into. At the same
time, I'd like to be able to supply reliable, concrete, and
indisputable numbers in response to the naysayers. In fact, I'm
working on just such an article right now.

Karl

Chaddy2222

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

KarlCore wrote:
> On Oct 25, 12:45 pm, "Doug" <dgeist...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> No problem, Doug.
> In a way, it would be wonderful to be able to put a quantitative
> measure to the number of disabled users accessing a site. I've seen a
> lot of numbers thrown around in an attempt to convince people to make
> accessible sites. Unfortunately, most of the time, those numbers are
> cooked in some way, and I find that disingenuous and in most cases
> very transparent. In cases like that, I feel it harms the credibility
> of the person arguing for accessibility.
>
I would say that it's not much different to the regular business
world though. I mean a part from a few specific ones that provide
equipment etc, it's not everyday that particular shops will be needing
to service people with disabilities, but they still need to be
accessible.
I am perhaps thinking of some smaller shops in this particular case.

> Obviously as an Accessibility Consultant, my mind has already been
> made up regarding what part of the debate I fall into. At the same
> time, I'd like to be able to supply reliable, concrete, and
> indisputable numbers in response to the naysayers. In fact, I'm
> working on just such an article right now.
>
That sounds good.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz