This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1yhoitink
Have you looked at the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines when building LibraryThing? The current version is still 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10) but work is nearly complete on version 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20). Following the WCAG guidelines is no guarantee for accessibility but it will enable assistive technologies such as screenreaders to interact with LT.
Some problems I can spot:
* LT seems to use javascript for functions like editing tags. I'm new to LT so don't know if there is an alternative way to do everything without JS but it might be a problem.
* Many images lack alt-attributes, for example the book covers on books pages. This will cause some screenreaders to read the entire filename (sometimes the entire URL) in an attempt to provide some useful content to the user. For images like these that do not convey information, alt="" would suffice. This will tell the screenreader there is no content.
* Not a priority 1 thing but it helps people with disabilities a lot: In forms, many labels are not associated with their inputs. This makes it confusing for blind people to know which field they're filling in. Associating labels with the fields also provides a larger click target for people with limited motor functions.
* The HTML used on LibraryThing is not valid. Example: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.librarything.com
Again, this is not a priority 1 thing but this does mean browsers will be left to make their own interpretations of what they think is being meant. This will undoubtedly lead to problems in browsers the site hasn't been tested in. Especially now that LibraryThing is branching out in new countries, making sure the underlying code is valid helps cross-browser availability of the site. In addition, people with disabilities will benefit because many use assistive technologies for which the site may not have been tested.
Yvette
Some problems I can spot:
* LT seems to use javascript for functions like editing tags. I'm new to LT so don't know if there is an alternative way to do everything without JS but it might be a problem.
* Many images lack alt-attributes, for example the book covers on books pages. This will cause some screenreaders to read the entire filename (sometimes the entire URL) in an attempt to provide some useful content to the user. For images like these that do not convey information, alt="" would suffice. This will tell the screenreader there is no content.
* Not a priority 1 thing but it helps people with disabilities a lot: In forms, many labels are not associated with their inputs. This makes it confusing for blind people to know which field they're filling in. Associating labels with the fields also provides a larger click target for people with limited motor functions.
* The HTML used on LibraryThing is not valid. Example: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.librarything.com
Again, this is not a priority 1 thing but this does mean browsers will be left to make their own interpretations of what they think is being meant. This will undoubtedly lead to problems in browsers the site hasn't been tested in. Especially now that LibraryThing is branching out in new countries, making sure the underlying code is valid helps cross-browser availability of the site. In addition, people with disabilities will benefit because many use assistive technologies for which the site may not have been tested.
Yvette
2An_Fear_Glas
It would be worthwhile for the LT team to get ahold of a copy of Watchfire Bobby for the purpose of testing with WCAG and screen readers in mind. I use that as part of my accessibility testing for the sites that my company operates, and it works very nicely.
Freedom Scientific's JAWS application is a good baseline test for screen readers since that app is quite popular in the USA and UK.
Freedom Scientific's JAWS application is a good baseline test for screen readers since that app is quite popular in the USA and UK.
