Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
10
↓
Dear Screen Reader Users, Since Web Developers Can't Automatically Detect If You're Using A Screen Reader, Why Don't You Just Hand That Data Over, The Apple Edition (customerservant.com)
submitted by Duriello
HDMILex 7 points 4y ago
Doesn't Windows automatically hand over that info though? I see screen reader-specific instructions on Amazon's shopping cart and there doesn't seem to be a way to opt out.
Totally agreed that it should be turned off by default though.
Totally agreed that it should be turned off by default though.
WhatWouldVaderDo 8 points 4y ago
Na, that's just always there. AFAIK, there is no way for a web dev to tell if a screen reader is running in any of the big three browsers.
arush2019 3 points 4y ago
Since I wrote the article, I'll reply to all of these. Regarding Amazon's instructions for screen readers, that is handled via a screen reader text class in the CSS. As a general rule, screen readers ignore CSS, with a couple notable exceptions. Thus, text can be hidden from anyone who is not using a screen reader by hiding the text offscreen or otherwise making it invisible and screen readers will still read it since they'll ignore the CSS.
Undercoverwd 3 points 4y ago
It's probably offscreen text that web developers add specifically for screen reader users. It's rendered for everyone (no sniffing), sighted users just don't see it because of css.
annibear 5 points 4y ago
Agreed, it's like when websites have at the top 'skip to main content' for screen reader users. It's always there, just only available for assistive technology. Doesn't turn over your data.
hopesthoughts 1 points 4y ago
Those things are always in the way! Either that, or I'm usually quicker with navigating by headings etc.
HDMILex 1 points 4y ago
Got it.
fastfinge 3 points 4y ago
I can see why this feature needs to exist. Currently, there are dozens of controls (sliders, click and drag, etc) that have no screen reader support at all. But my feeling is it should be an allow/block permission, like use of the camera and microphone, use of location services, notifications, etc. "This website would like to access your accessibility preferences. Allow/block".
Duriello [OP] 4 points 4y ago
ARIA already covers the case of custom controls (the examples that you mention are implementable as ARIA controls), and failing that there are also aural style sheets that target screen-readers specifically without advertising that you are blind. There's no need for this in my opinion.
fastfinge 1 points 4y ago
> there are also aural style sheets
Wrong. While the standard was proposed, no screen readers or browsers ever fully supported it. As well:
> This feature is no longer recommended. Though some browsers might still support it, it may have already been removed from the relevant web standards, may be in the process of being dropped, or may only be kept for compatibility purposes. Avoid using it, and update existing code if possible; see the compatibility table at the bottom of this page to guide your decision. Be aware that this feature may cease to work at any time.
> This is an obsolete API and is no longer guaranteed to work.Obsolete since Gecko 6.0 (Firefox 6.0 / Thunderbird 6.0 / SeaMonkey 2.3)
> This feature is obsolete. Although it may still work in some browsers, its use is discouraged since it could be removed at any time. Try to avoid using it.
from: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/aural
Wrong. While the standard was proposed, no screen readers or browsers ever fully supported it. As well:
> This feature is no longer recommended. Though some browsers might still support it, it may have already been removed from the relevant web standards, may be in the process of being dropped, or may only be kept for compatibility purposes. Avoid using it, and update existing code if possible; see the compatibility table at the bottom of this page to guide your decision. Be aware that this feature may cease to work at any time.
> This is an obsolete API and is no longer guaranteed to work.Obsolete since Gecko 6.0 (Firefox 6.0 / Thunderbird 6.0 / SeaMonkey 2.3)
> This feature is obsolete. Although it may still work in some browsers, its use is discouraged since it could be removed at any time. Try to avoid using it.
from: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/aural
arush2019 3 points 4y ago
All of these elements and drag and drop functionality can be made accessible simply by implementing keyboard support. Screen reader users are about 5% of the disabled population, and they are not the only ones who benefit from keyboard support. This feature, by contrast, provides no benefit, (exactly zero use cases have been put forward for assistive technology tracking that either are mostly beneficial or don't come with a ton of privacy/data protection trade-offs), and keyboard support is something that should already be part of any web developer's toolset. This is not only a solution looking for a problem, it's one that brings a ton of problems with it.
fastfinge 2 points 4y ago
> privacy/data protection trade-offs
Access to location services comes with similar (perhaps worse) trade-offs. But enabling or disabling access to it is user-choice. Why shouldn't users get a similar choice for this API? I would prefer that it turns into a permission-based API everywhere, not just on the web. Currently, Windows xp and all later versions of Windows, most versions of Android, and most versions of IOS and OS X, will hand this info over to any app running on the device. You don't get asked, and you have no setting to turn it off. Why should apps get this info when websites don't? I'm sure the facebook app is recording the status of voiceover on your device and reporting back to facebook. In my opinion, getting this API on the web, and making it permission based (allow/block every time it's used) might serve as a stepping-stone to get this info locked behind a permission prompt everywhere else, too.
Access to location services comes with similar (perhaps worse) trade-offs. But enabling or disabling access to it is user-choice. Why shouldn't users get a similar choice for this API? I would prefer that it turns into a permission-based API everywhere, not just on the web. Currently, Windows xp and all later versions of Windows, most versions of Android, and most versions of IOS and OS X, will hand this info over to any app running on the device. You don't get asked, and you have no setting to turn it off. Why should apps get this info when websites don't? I'm sure the facebook app is recording the status of voiceover on your device and reporting back to facebook. In my opinion, getting this API on the web, and making it permission based (allow/block every time it's used) might serve as a stepping-stone to get this info locked behind a permission prompt everywhere else, too.
arush2019 2 points 4y ago
Location on the web requires a few things to be present before it works, most notably SSL. Furthermore, the HTML 5 location API relies on your IP address, which makes location pretty unreliable as an identifying piece of information. Browsers should have no more access to this info than websites should have, (none), and yes, Facebook absolutely tracks this info, which is a huge problem. But, just because Facebook does something doesn't mean everyone else should be allowed to do the same. Facebook announced at the NFB convention last year that they were effectively tracking this info, and it took less than a year for it to start being used to discriminate, and for charges against Facebook to be filed.
fastfinge 1 points 4y ago
> the HTML 5 location API relies on your IP address,
Does it? My understanding is that it relies on your device. So if you're on a computer, it relies on your IP address, but on a phone it would use GPS. From $1:
> This is done using the watchPosition() function, which has the same input parameters as getCurrentPosition(). The callback function is called multiple times, allowing the browser to either update your location as you move, or provide a more accurate location as different techniques are used to geolocate you.
That doesn't sound, to me, like something that's depending on IP address.
> just because Facebook does something
I was just using Facebook as an example. I'm sure everyone from Google to Lyft is doing this. We know Amazon is doing this. You missed my point entirely. My point was that all apps can already do this. I don't understand how, in the current landscape, we can rationalize treating apps and websites differently. Because for the most part, they're the same thing these days. What we need is a permission-based API that provides for user choice, across apps and websites. I don't think a flat "no" is either completely reasonable, or a position we have any chance of winning.
Does it? My understanding is that it relies on your device. So if you're on a computer, it relies on your IP address, but on a phone it would use GPS. From $1:
> This is done using the watchPosition() function, which has the same input parameters as getCurrentPosition(). The callback function is called multiple times, allowing the browser to either update your location as you move, or provide a more accurate location as different techniques are used to geolocate you.
That doesn't sound, to me, like something that's depending on IP address.
> just because Facebook does something
I was just using Facebook as an example. I'm sure everyone from Google to Lyft is doing this. We know Amazon is doing this. You missed my point entirely. My point was that all apps can already do this. I don't understand how, in the current landscape, we can rationalize treating apps and websites differently. Because for the most part, they're the same thing these days. What we need is a permission-based API that provides for user choice, across apps and websites. I don't think a flat "no" is either completely reasonable, or a position we have any chance of winning.
Duriello [OP] 3 points 4y ago
This is a crosspost from the $1 in /r/Apple.
AllHarlowsEve 2 points 4y ago
Oh no, they might know something completely unimportant and serve up a website that actually works instead of the graphic-heavy site that they present to sighted people. It's definitely not like blind people already use different versions, ie mobile versions, because they're more accessible.
Mountains, molehills, et cetera.
Mountains, molehills, et cetera.
Duriello [OP] 6 points 4y ago
It's already possible to target the blind specifically with an aural CSS without having the browser advertising that you are blind all over the Internet, which is a privacy issue, not to mention that as we all should know by now the blind versions of websites always get less maintenance because they're less used. These days there is no excuse for not making the main version of your website perfectly accessible since it requires little thought beyond good design practices that benefit not only the blind but the website itself as they have the side effect of providing search engine optimizations that improve the rankings of sites in search results.
arush2019 3 points 4y ago
Most browsers don't support aural CSS. Even if they did, screen readers don't support it, so that's a non-solution. There are some accessibility best practices which also dovetail with search engine optimization best practices, but accessibility is not a search engine optimization silver bullet.
hopesthoughts 1 points 4y ago
No, but SEO is certainly an accessibility one. Of course it requires you to do lots of extra research beforehand etc. Basically, you have to become an SEO expert. Although my answer to that is to not care much about that whole thing. In other words, what WP doesn't do for me re: SEO, I'm probably not going to do on my own.
In the rare case that I do upload images, I use the WP image uploader. I can't remember right off hand if it provides for alt text. I usually do a pretty decent job of explaining the images in my post though.
In the rare case that I do upload images, I use the WP image uploader. I can't remember right off hand if it provides for alt text. I usually do a pretty decent job of explaining the images in my post though.
arush2019 3 points 4y ago
This is far from a mountains-out-of-molehills situation, and data about individuals with disabilities is far from unimportant. First, being able to browse annonymously is fundamental to the web itself, as is accessibility. Dataa on whether or not someone is using a screen reader, coupled withh all the other data points already collected, prevents annonymity, specifically for screen reader users. Second, individuals with disabilities are protected by law in most jurisdictions from being compelled to disclose their disability, and data on disabilities is often considered health data, which is subject to a completely different set of protections. Third, we have nothing but examples of discrimination whenever anything like this is implemented and used. See, for example, Amazon deliberately disabling features in their iOS Alexa app and not re-enabling them until they were caught, and Facebook discriminating against people with disabilities via their advertising platform with regard to home-sale ads, as recently as last week.
funkymollusk 1 points 4y ago
If anyone knows how this works, such as via CSS media queries, please reply and let us know. There is no documentation and I can’t find information anywhere.
devinprater 1 points 4y ago
Oh but Apple has our best interests at heart, y'all. Apple knows what we want, even before we do, and even better than we do. We're just militant blind people that should practice love and acceptance of Apple. Never mind that Fuck the Police thing on iTunes, that's creativity at work by an oppressed minority.
Sarcasm of course, Apple should learn to listen, like Microsoft *tries sometimes* to do.
Sarcasm of course, Apple should learn to listen, like Microsoft *tries sometimes* to do.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.