A more “print” like quality to the web is the dream of every web designer which is why we owe a debt of gratitude to the creators of “sIFR”.  Scalable Inman Flash Replacement or “sIFR” for short is the brain child of Mike Davidson and Mark Wubben.  Although, the concept of “flash replacement” was invented by others before them it was they who perfected it and released it free of charge to the masses.  “sIFR” is their solution to the modern web’s typography woes… for now anyway. 

In the category of Typography, there are many graphics-related frustrations for web designers to contend with.  Like the extremely limited number of usable fonts, the increased visibility of pixels around text which results in the upsizing of fonts, and the whole anti-alias issue.  For years, the only work-around web designers had to combat this was to use images instead of the actual text from the html source code.  Conceptually, that is how “sIFR” works as well.  “sIFR” takes the text from a web page that was originally written in (x)html and formatted in CSS and replaces it with Flash.  There is more to it than that but that’s the cliff note version. 

Here is how works:  You open a web page, code within the page checks your computer to see if you have the necessary program and conditions to run it, if you don’t have the necessary criteria for it to operate then your browser will just display the regular page without the flash, if you do have the necessary criteria then javascript adds a class to the page code called “hasFlash”, then more javascript searches through your code making measurements of things that are marked for change, and then it creates a flash movie to “replace” the now hidden text behind it.  Again, there is a lot more going on under the hood but for the layman this description should suffice.

The advantages of “sIFR” are obvious.  One can dramatically improve the look of their site while still maintaining the necessary titles and text for web accessibility and web search ability.  The disadvantage is that it takes more work and more time to complete.  However, for the perfectionist it is worth it.  The creator, Mike Davidson, said it best: “While sIFR is a liberating solution, it clearly falls into the category of “’things which shouldn’t have to be done’”.

Unfortunately, I used to be just like the people who raised the questions in this story. As a beginning web designer, I had never stopped to consider how people with disabilities might have trouble navigating through one of my websites. In fact, I probably never would have come to regard making my websites accessible as an important thing to do had it not been for this research paper assignment.

Simply defined, “Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the web.” (W3C, 2005) To me, Web accessibility is a mind set or a lens through which designers see the web. I think it is important for web designers to train themselves to account for web accessibility issues in the same way they are accustomed to considering other issues like browser compatibility. Designers should be ever mindful about it and not fall into the temptation of treating their personal computer screens as if they are universally compatible.

&ldquot;In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities.&rdquot; (Section508.gov, 1998) The amendment is Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d) and its’ purpose is to provide people with disabilities the same “easy access” to information that is offered to everyone else. This is easier said than done. Knowing that, the authors of Section 508 specified in the amendment itself that within 18 months from the enactment of section 508 the “Access Board” was required to issue and publish “the technical and functional performance criteria necessary to implement the requirements” (Workforce Investment Act, 1998) of section 508. In other words, they had to explain how they were going to make the information more easily accessible to people with disabilities.

With all the negativity surrounding government officials it makes me very happy to think about how the government of the United States of America basically pioneered the web accessibility movement that I am so well aware of today. I find it very interesting to think about how the people who worked on section 508 were beginning to view the World Wide Web with this new lens; the lens that sees the Web as something that belongs to all people regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability.

Many designers feel the same way I do about this issue. In fact, the group responsible for most, if not all, web standards, the World Wide Web Consortium began a “Web Accessibility Initiative” or “WAI” for the purpose of seeking ways to make the World Wide Web accessible AND usable to people with disabilities as well as for older people. As a result of this initiative, the W3C came up with a set of guidelines for web designers and for web developers to follow. The current standard for the “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines” is “WCAG 2.0”. Those guidelines include things like: providing “text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language” (W3C, 2008) and making sure that “Web pages do not contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period” (W3C, 2008) because this is known to cause seizures.

The W3C has also created specific guidelines for the creation of user agents. A “user agent” is any device used to access the internet. The most common “user agent” is a computer with a “browser”. However, user agents like cell phones, PDAs, and text readers are becoming more and more prevalent. It is important for the developers of these products to take into consideration web accessibility issues. The current standard for “User Agent Accessibility Guidelines” as set by the W3C is “UAAG 2.0.”

There are many guidelines and as time goes by more guidelines will be added. So how do designers and developers remember all of this stuff? That is where the handy “Bobby” tool comes in. Using the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, “Bobby” checks websites to see if there are any elements in the page that violate the guidelines and returns a report to its’ user. However, “Bobby is only an automated tool that points out where the guidelines appear to be broken.” (Mardiros) In other words, its’ findings are not entirely accurate. It only finds the violations of the exact criteria as defined by its’ creators. However, the lengthy report it generates can really help designers and developers identify areas in which web accessibility can be improved.

In my own small design repertoire, I have violated almost every one of the W3C’s web accessibility guidelines. However, my most common violations are: (1) making my header out of an image and not including an “h1″ tag for disabled friendly user agents to identify. (2) using “b” instead of “strong” to emphasize a particular word or sentence, and (3) not color testing my pages to make sure there is adequate contrast between background, content, images, etc.

In the future, I plan to implement the following techniques to help ensure that the websites I design are accessible to people with disabilities: (1) Use “Bobby” early and often, (2) Color test during the design phase so that I do not have to worry about it later, (3) always validate my pages, (4) learn to use HTML Tidy and get Macromedia Web Accessibility extensions for Dreamweaver.

In my opening metaphor about the new church building I spoke about the large entry way and the redesigned bathrooms and the objections raised about it. After its’ completion it was apparent that the larger entry way and the redesigned bathrooms were necessary. In fact, those changes made the building a much nicer place to be. The further I progress in my web design education the more I am amazed at how much goes into creating a beautiful, functional, and now accessible website. At times, it seems much too daunting. There is so much to remember… so much to take into consideration. And yet, when all is considered I think the World Wide Web will be a much nicer place to be… for everyone.

WORKS CITED

Mardiros. (n.d.). Bobby World Wide Web Accessibility Tool. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from Mardiros Internet Marketing: http://www.mardiros.net/bobby-accessibility-tool.html

Section508.gov. (1998). Section 508. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from Section508.gov: http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3

W3C. (2005, September). Web Accessibility Initiative: Introduction to Web Accessibility. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from World Wide Web Consortium: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php#terms

W3C. (2008, December 11). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from W3C: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Workforce Investment Act. (1998, August 7). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220), August 7, 1998 . Retrieved February 28, 2009, from Section508.gov: http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=14