Posts
I found out last week that Google had recently integrated YouTube with Google's speech-text technology, allowing videos displayed on YouTube to have their captions and transcripts automatically generated.
In addition, these captions and transcripts can then be translated, via Google's text translation system, and displayed on the video in any supported language.
The transcript can also be downloaded (and corrected if necessary) to be reused in other environments.
Whilst Google admits that neither the speech-to-text autocaptioning or the translation tool are perfect, these are measurable steps forward in using computing power to address accessibility in videos.
It also is a powerful tool for any organisation with video footage - even for internal use. They can simply upload video to YouTube in a private channel, have it auto-transcribed - correct this as required and then translate the material as necessary, then remove the video from YouTube and use the translated material internally.
More information on this tool is available at YouTube's blog in the post, Automatic captions in YouTube and I've embedded their demo video below.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dealing with video accessibility - automating captions and transcripts | Tweet |
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UK thoughts on adopting WCAG 2.0 for government websites | Tweet |
Jack Pickard has written an excellent post regarding How should the UK public sector adopt WCAG 2.0? which touches on many of the themes required for adoption in Australia.
If you were thinking about shifting your Australian government site to a WCAG 2.0 level of accessibility, this is welcome contribution to the discussion.
Sometimes I wonder if across government we have enough conversations on these types of topics - and my conversation I mean free and open exchanges of views and information in shared spaces, rather than formal responses to defined criteria (with no correspondence entered into).
Friday, September 18, 2009
Encouraging government departments to embrace accessibility standards (WCAG2) | Tweet |
Some things are better communicated by song than words, for example the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG2).
If you're struggling to get your department to understand the importance and detail of the WCAG 2.0 standard, why not send them this video.
Note that WCAG 2.0 has not, to my knowledge, been endorsed yet by the Australian Human Rights Commission, whose latest World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes dates back to 31 March 2009.
Monday, July 27, 2009
UK Ministers probed about continued Internet Explorer 6 use in their departments | Tweet |
I've posted previously about whether it is time for government departments still using the nine-year old Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 to upgrade to a more modern web browser.
This topic has become a matter of political interest in the UK, raised in a question to British Parliamentary Ministers last week and reported in an article in Kable, MoD sticks with insecure browser.
Members of the armed forces will carry on using Microsoft's outdated Internet Explorer 6 browser, contravening the government's own advice on internet security.This should raise a flag for senior Australian public servants, who need to consider whether they risk negative political attention to their Ministers and the government due to any policy restricting their department to this old and non-standard web browser.
According to parliamentary written answers received by Labour MP Tom Watson, the majority of departments still require staff to use IE6. Most have plans to upgrade to the more secure IE7, and some to IE8, but the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has no plans to change.
The use of such an old browser can also raise tensions when Departmental staff are attempting to view the web in the same manner as their customers, who are more likely to use Internet Explorer 7, Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3 or Safari.
This can lead to issues testing usability and accessibility, issues viewing websites no longer optimised for Internet Explorer 6 and when staff are attempting to co-browse the internet with customers whilst on the phone.
Labour MP Tom Watson was quoted in the Kable article, stating,
"Many civil servants use web browsers as a tool of their trade," he told GC News. "They're as important as pens and paper. So to force them to use the most decrepit browser in the world is a rare form of workplace cruelty that should be stopped.
"When you consider that the government supported Get Safe Online initiative advises that companies should upgrade from IE6, you would imagine that permanent secretaries would like to practice what they preach," he added. "Why civil servants should not be given the choice to use Firefox or Chrome or Safari is beyond me. UK web workers deserve better."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Are you ready for Internet Explorer 8 and Safari 4? - Overview of the web browser market | Tweet |
Does your organisation keep an eye on current browser standards and adoption rates?
If not it's worth surveying the market a few times each year to ensure that your web standards continue to align with market trends.
Below is a quick whip around the market, looking at the main browsers in use today.
Internet Explorer
Microsoft recently released the final version of Internet Explorer 8, with the expected range of features as demonstrated during the public beta.
It is still early days for the browser, however based on past experience it will experience rapid early adoption up to around 10-15% of the market, primarily offsetting Internet Explorer 7 rather than other browsers, then more slowly grow towards a larger market share over several years.
Most of the initial adoption will be by households - government customers - meaning that it is important to track usage and determine when your agency will begin supporting the browser. Fortunately this is the most standards compliant Microsoft browser in recent years, simplifying the task of supporting it alongside other modern web browsers.
I expect to see limited effect on Internet Explorer 6, which now has negligible and continually declining market share anyway. By my website reporting under 5% of Australian web users now use IE6. Wikipedia articles indicate (drawing from various reports) a similar trend, with IE6 in February 2009 accounting for only 18.85% of the 68% of computers using IE - making its overall share around 12% internationally.
IE6 is also very much a 9-5 web browser, used primarily in government agencies and libraries, which are more resistant to rapid software upgrades due to their security frameworks. Once government agencies move away from IE6 due to Microsoft withdrawing support for the browser I expect it will largely disappear, removing the need for many code hacks and saving significant development costs for organisations.
Most larger private companies are happily using Internet Explorer 7 and while they are likely to adopt Internet Explorer 8 at some point, they are more likely to follow a wait and see approach to ensure the product is stable and secure before upgrading.
In overall terms, IE is at its lowest market share since 2004, with only around 68-74% of internet users now using the browser. I do not see IE8 reversing this decline to any measurable extent and I am willing to predict that we could see IE's share declining into the sub 66% range by the end of 2009.
This would still leave IE the dominant web browser overall, however Firefox may have close to equivalent share with IE7, making it just as important.
Safari
Apple is getting closer to launching Safari 4, with a public beta now available for both Mac and PC.
The new version appears from my testing to be less of a jump for coders (therefore has less of an impact on business management of websites), with Safari 4 appearing to largely extend the features of the already very standards compliant Safari 3.
As Safari is still primarily regarding as a browser for the Mac, I expect Safari 4 will experience a fairly rapid growth replacing Safari 3, but will have very limited impacts on browser shares across non-Apple platforms.
As Apple continues to grow, particularly in the mobile space, there will be some growth from the current 4-8% market share (depending whose reports you believe), however it would take inroads on the PC front to see this browser grow significantly into the double digits range.
Firefox
Firefox is continuing to pick up market share from Internet Explorer, now holding 18-22% of the market according to reports featured in Wikipedia.
The browser continues to be highly standards friendly and has a huge groundswell of support despite a few intermittent speed bugs in several recent releases.
I predict that Firefox will reach 25% market share by the end of 2009, which could take it almost to parity with IE7 use by that time.
Ignore Firefox at your peril.
Chrome
Despite being lightening fast in running web-based applications, Google's new Chrome browser does not appear to be gaining significant uptake.
It currently sits at slightly over 1% of the market by most measures and in my view it has failed to capture the popular imagination.
I've spoken to a number of people who've said that Chrome just doesn't look familiar enough as a web browser, indicating to me that aesthetics may be more important than its super fast javascript engine.
Given that Google introduced this browser to encourage others to improve the speed of their engines (in order to run Google web applications faster and cut down speed differences with desktop applications), I don't think Google is worried about the take-up rate at this time.
The browser is on a rapid development curve, with around 30 incremental updates since release, but still doesn't support some key web features and doesn't render all sites correctly (I have troubles with managing my blog with it - ironic given I use a Google blog tool).
I expect that when (if) Google really wants to push adoption it will engage its marketing muscle to do so, then we might see rapid take-up, however this will most likely occur at the expense of Firefox and Opera before it impacts on IE.
Opera
I am beginning to feel that Opera is the 'nice guy' of the browser industry. In other words, it will finish last.
While the browser has had significant success on non-Apple mobile platforms, its overall browser market share remains around 0.7% and has been stable for most of the last year.
For whatever reason Opera hasn't managed to convince users that it has a unique selling proposition and given the competition across the browser market at present I don't see it coming up with anything new quickly enough to prevent others copying the feature and capitalising on the benefits.
What do I use?
Personally I use all of the browsers above, with Firefox my preferred browser for web surfing and Chrome for web-applications (such as Gmail and Google Docs). IE has a place as a secondary browser, but I rarely open Safari or Opera except when testing sites.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Less online hurdles = more egovernment customers | Tweet |
The complexity of screens and the registration and sign-in processes for some Australian egovernment (online) services disturbs me.
In the commercial world I lived by a simple rule of thumb, on average each hurdle I erected between a customer and their goal reduced the overall number of customers who reached their goal by 30%.
To visually demonstate,
| Hurdles 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Customers 1,000,000 700,000 490,000 343,000 240,100 168,070 117,649 82,354 57,648 40,354 28,248 | Percentage using 100% 70% 49% 34% 24% 17% 12% 8% 6% 4% 3% |
This mean that if I started with one million customers and had ten hurdles, only 28,248 of them (3%) would be willing and able to jump all of them to use the service.
If I cut this to six hurdles, this would increase usage to 117,649 customers (12%) - or four times as many - a 400% increase in usage!
If I could cut it to only three hurdles, that would raise the number of customers able to use the service to 490,000 customers (49%) or another three times as many - 300% increase from the six hurdles figure or a massive 1,700% increase from ten hurdles.
In other words, removing hurdles can dramatically increase usage. While in reality it is never as linear as this, remove the right hurdles and the number of customers using an online service will soar.
When engaging customers online we already have built-in hurdles people have to meet to use and interact with our egovernment services:
- Access to a computer
- An internet connection
- Comfort with using the above
- Mandatory registration processes (even for simple transactions)
- No sales pitch for services - explaining by video/animation and audio how a service works and what benefits it provides customers
- Difficult-to-find services and registration/sign-on links
- Overly complex registration/sign-on processes
- Unnecessary information collection - to the extent of asking customers information they are unlikely to have access to
- Badly written service, security and privacy information
- Poorly constructed workflows with unnecessary or out-of-order steps and no clarity on where the customer is in the process (how many steps remain)
- Error messages in bureaucratic or tech-speak that dead-end the customer (no way forward)
- A lack of appropriate acknowledgement when steps or transactions are correctly completed
- Forcing customers to switch channels in the middle of a process without warning or when tasks could be completed entirely online
- A requirement for complex and non-intuitive password and usernames
- Difficult password and username retrieval processes (if a service is used less than weekly, most customers will forget their password at some point)
- A lack of tutorials, contextual help or step-ups to live online interactions with customer service officers (such as Avatar-based agent interactions, or actual staff interactions via text chat, voice chat or video chat)
- Services that require the use of plug-ins, older web browsers or are not friendly towards mobile devices
Most of these can be adopted by government without compromising security or privacy and all lead to greater usage and satisfaction with online services.
Some of these 'hurdle-repellents' include:
- Upfront video demonstrating what the service does (the benefit) and how it works (ease of use)
- Larger and more prominent registration/sign-on) buttons, with less clutter on pages to distract customers
- Use of plain english in all instructions and error messages, generally in informal language
- Extra large form fields (12pt or larger) for easier reading
- Simpler workflows with less steps and clear progression bars explaining the next step
- Customer-defined usernames and passwords (or use of email address as username), with visual aids to maximise security (such as password strength indicators)
- Secret questions (some user-defined) to provide a second line of support for customers who forget their passwords
- Clear and simple 'forgotten password' processes which do not require customers to switch channels (to call)
- Contextual help integrated into every screen
- Video or text and graphics tutorials for each workflow - clearly accessible within the workflow and before a user authenticates (double as sales tools)
- Live online help, potentially with co-browsing (where the customer service officer can see what the customer is seeing)
There are other commonly used approaches to reducing the hurdles for your customers when using egovernment services. Try out some commercial sites and you'll quickly gather more ideas.
So why reduce the hurdles for customers - potentially at a cost to the government?
The benefits for the government agency include faster outcomes, lower cost transactions and greater customer satisfaction. There's a side benefit of more timely and accurate reporting as online transactions can be easier to capture and report on than those over a counter or phone.
The benefits for customers include less stress when transacting (therefore more likelihood they will keep using the same approach) and faster outcomes.
The downside? Government will need to invest more in our online infrastructure to make it easier and faster for customers.
I reckon that trade-off is well worth it.
So what is your agency doing to remove online transaction hurdles for customers?
Friday, March 06, 2009
PDFs can be accessible! | Tweet |
I've previously applauded the efforts of the Human Rights Commissioner to draw attention to government websites who provide inaccessible content via WebWatch.
Even where an agency's overall site may be designed according to accessibility guidelines, when certain key information is presented only in PDF format, this information can be inaccessible.
However I've also been a little cautious of the 'PDF is bad' approach.
The PDF format can be made accessible. If you use Adobe's software to generate PDFs there are a set of tools for ensuring documents are accessible, including the ability to assess the accessibility, tag images with alternate text and set the reading order for content.
Correct formatting of the original document (such as the use of standard heading levels) also goes a long way to improving accessibility, as does some thought around colour contrasts and use of text rather than graphics of text. These approaches apply as much for PDF as they do for HTML content.
So I'm pleased to see that Stap Isi has posted about several presentations where people have been explaining to public servants how to create accessible PDF documents in the article, My name is b3rn and I make PDFs.
I don't think government is likely to abandon PDF any time soon, so ensuring that public servants are trained to generate accessible PDFs is crucial.
Friday, February 20, 2009
How can we do better? Mobile web is just like desktop web from 1998 - Nielsen | Tweet |
Jakob Nielsen, often considered one of the world's leading thinkers on usability, has discussed the mobile web in his latest Alertbox monthly update, equalling the state of mobile websites today as similar to the state of the desktop internet in 1998.
I tend to agree that for many organisations this is the case, with Nielsen's comments all hitting close to the mark - abysmal success rates in users achieving their goals, pages requiring too long to download and featuring too much bloat, code crashes and excessive scrolling.
I've blogged previously about the need for government to begin more seriously considering and positioning for the importance of mobile sites. The growth of larger screen (and touchscreen) smartphones has finally turned mobile devices into an acceptable platform for web browsing.
A major point Nielsen raised was that many mobile sites are still being designed like desktop sites, just as in 1998 when websites were being designed like print brochures (ala brochureware).
This is a trend I've discussed previously - each new medium is first defined in terms of the paradigm of the last.
For instance, when television was introduced, programs were first structured like radio shows, and further back when movies were introduced they were structured like stage shows. The initial radio programs often consisted of an announcer reading the local newspaper on air.
It takes some time for society to begin to understand the true value of a medium and look on it as a new and distinct form, rather than as an extension of an older form.
This causes me to reflect on what the mobile medium will eventually become. Defining it in terms of a 'mobile internet' may be too limiting, too caught in the desktop internet paradigm.
Mobile devices have their own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. For a government organisation - or any organisation to use these to best advantage, they must look at the specifics of the platform, not simply port their website to mobile (as they ported their publications to online).
Some of the obvious strengths of mobile include;
geo-location - it knows where you are
interaction time - people interact with mobile devices 24/7, whereas desktops require a conscious action
voice integration - voice communications can be embedded easily into the platform
photo and video capture - people can take photos and video anywhere, all the time
Some of the obvious disadvantages include;
Small screen size - makes displaying complex information more difficult
Short interactions - people make many more interactions with mobile devices, but most are only a few minutes in duration. Try concentrating on a mobile screen for an hour
reception quality - can vary enormously, making some online-only applications less usable
small keyboards - makes sustained typing more difficult
Many different platforms - there's less uniformity of screen size and internet capability (including cost of access) than on desktops, where there are a few dominant players
When developing a mobile site taking these factors into consideration will help your organisation develop more than a simple mobile port of your website, but a custom experience that helps people complete the different types of tasks they wish to complete on a mobile device.
So when you get your senior management across the line on having a mobile version of your website, ensure you also take them on the journey to understand that a simple reformat of existing content, navigation and functionality probably will not deliver the best result for your customers and stakeholders.
There's an opportunity to step beyond the desktop paradigm and deliver a mobile experience with real value. I challenge you to take it!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
How well do Australian government sites meet WCAG 2.0? - still some way to go states new report | Tweet |
While I've not yet seen an official statement confirming whether Australian government will support the second version of the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0), there has been a report released by UsabilityOne reviewing 12 Federal Government websites against the guidelines.
The Accessibility Industry Report found a number of issues across the sites that would need to be addressed for them to be WCAG 2.0 compatible.
To quote UsabilityOne,
None of the websites audited adhere to all criteria in the latest accessibility guidelines.
Have you looked into making your site compliance with WCAG 2.0?
Or are you waiting for the official government position?
Friday, December 26, 2008
WebAim conducting survey on screen reader usage | Tweet |
WebAim is currently conducting a survey looking at the usage of screen readers and the personal experiences of their users.
If you're a user of a screen reader, or are interested in accessibility for vision-impaired people and use of screen readers (as all government web and intranet managers should be), the survey is available from the Webaim blog post, Screen Reader Survey.
There's some interesting comments already on the issues around use of captcha technology (even audio equivalents).
Results will be published in a few months.
Friday, December 12, 2008
WCAG 2.0 (finally) released | Tweet |
The W3C has finally released the final version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
Announced in a press release this morning Australian time, W3C Web Standard Defines Accessibility for Next Generation Web, the W3C states that,
This new standard from the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) will advance accessibility across the full range of Web content (such as text, images, audio, and video) and Web applications. WCAG 2.0 can be more precisely tested, yet it allows Web developers more flexibility and potential for innovation. Together with supporting technical and educational materials, WCAG 2.0 is easier to understand and use.
AGIMO was surveying Government agencies regarding their views on mandating WCAG 2.0 for the Australian government. I'm looking forward to the outcomes from this.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
How does the government maximise information distribution while minimising copyright risk? | Tweet |
It has always struck me as a little contradictory that while one of the government's primary goals is to build citizen awareness of various services, issues, initiatives and opportunities, at the same time many government communications and publications (than need to be) are protected under rigid copyright disclaimers.
I've even seen situations where government agencies require that organisations formally request permission before linking to their websites, although this is almost totally unenforceable and contrary to one of the primary reasons for using the internet.
These copyright disclaimers and reuse permission processes were designed for a useful purpose, to stop the misuse, misrepresentation or reselling of government material.
This is fair enough. However in many cases the copyright restrictions go so far (all rights reserved) as to work against government communications objectives, making dissemination of government information more difficult, costly, slower and less effective.
Who loses out? The public.
Who benefits? I'm not sure anyone does.
Do legitimate approaches exist to protect government interests but still allow appropriate reuse of information?
At least one does, Creative Commons licensing.
This issue of how do organisations and individuals allow selected but not universal reuse of content is not unique to government. It matured in the open source software area, with a solution devised by the Free Software Foundation named GNU General Public License.
This license was specifically developed for software, but prompted the creation of a similar licensing arrangement in 2002 for other creative works such as websites, audio, video and print publications named Creative Commons. Creative Commons is now in use in 43 countries around the world (and growing), including Australia, to allow selective reuse of otherwise copyright-protected content.
What is Creative Commons licensing?
Creative Commons is a flexible form of copyright designed for the evolving copyright needs of the modern world.
It allows a copyright holder to retain some of their rights, while permitting greater latitude for others to redistribute, extend and reuse licensed material in ways permitted by the holder.
Six main types of Creative Commons licenses exist, depending on the level of control desired by the copyright holder (with a seventh type permitting totally open access). Licenses are country specific and a new version of these licenses for Australia recently completed consultation and is in draft.
Has Creative Commons been considered by the Australian government?
It has been discussed by government over a number of years - and adopted in Queensland.
For example it states in the Stanley Declaration, 13 July 2007, Australian National Summit on Open Access to Public Sector Information,"The adoption and implementation by governments of an open access policy to public sector information (PSI) will ensure the greatest public benefit is derived from the increased use of information created, collected, maintained, used, shared, and disseminated by and for all governments in Australia."
More recently it was recommended in the Federal Government's VenturousAustralia report Review of the National Australian Innovation System released by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Recommendation 7.8) that,"Australian governments should adopt international standards of open publishing as far as possible. Material released for public information by Australian governments should be released under a creative commons licence."
This was also commented on by the Minister, Senator Carr, in what others have termed a fairly strong endorsement."We are and will remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our interest to promote the freest possible flow of information domestically and globally.
The arguments for stepping out first on open access are the same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions trading – the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we more chance we have of persuading other countries to reciprocate.
And if we want the rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home."
Where can Creative Commons copyright licenses be used on government products?
While the Queensland government has permitted use of Creative Commons Licensing for several years under the Queensland Information Licensing Framework, other jurisdictions are not as advanced.
Victoria is considering Creative Commons in the Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data, but this will not report back until 30 June 2009.
AGIMO is apparently looking at the national framework, though I have no information on their timeline or prioritisation of this work.
I am not aware of the situation in other jurisdictions - can anyone tell me?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Why do concerns about Flash persist? | Tweet |
For the last ten years I've been making use of Adobe Flash (formerly Macromedia Flash) within websites to provide rich content features and applications unattainable with HTML.
Unfortunately I still get asked the same questions about Flash, regarding accessibility, file size and how many users have the technology.
I'd like to put these to bed.
Flash is an accessible format (meets the W3C's requirements in the WCAG), usage is extremely high (over 95%) and file size for downloading is no longer an issue (Flash files are often smaller than equivalents, due to compression and effective streaming).
I've provided more detail in my full post below.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s there were valid concerns over how many people could access Flash files and whether their size would cause issues for dial-up users.
There were also accessibility concerns, which more often reflected the level of production values for Flash in Australia, rather than actual issues with the platform.
I've noticed that there are still many Flash 'doubters' about raising the same concerns as were raised ten years ago.
Fortunately there are some easy ways to put these concerns to rest.
Penetration rate - how many people have Flash?
Adobe representatives I have heard speaking at events regularly state that Flash penetration is greater than 97% in the western world - including countries such as Australia.
Ironically PDF penetration (also an Adobe created format) is slightly lower than this - so on that basis it would be better to provide content in Flash format rather than PDF.
Taking Adobe's self-promotion with a grain of salt, it is easy for organisations to check Flash penetration for their own website audience using their web reporting tools. Where their reporting doesn't provide this statistic, free web reporting tools such as Google Analytics do and can be easily and rapidly added to a site (via a small code block).
For example, for my agency's website, for the last month, Google Analytics tells me that 98.27% of website visitors had Flash installed (and 95% of visitors had Flash 9.0+ or later). This is even higher than that claimed by Adobe, and makes me very comfortable in advocating Flash use within it.
File size versus connection speed
It's also possible via web reporting to track the connection speed of website visitors. This will verify what percentage use broadband versus dial-up, and indicates what percentage are more capable of receiving larger files (250kb+).
This can be useful when validating the use of Flash, which appears to be larger than HTML pages (though often is smaller). However be careful when simply relying on a high broadband penetration rate to validate the use of Flash.
Often Flash is faster than HTML for delivering similar dynamic content. This is because of two reasons,
Due to straming even large Flash files do not take long to start running on the user's system, meaning that the raw file size is less important.
A recent experience we've had in our agency was in considering file sizes for internal elearning modules. In comparing the same module as a Flash file and as a DHTML (Dynamic HTML) file our experience was that the DHTML file was up to 10x as large in size - making Flash a far better option for sites with lower bandwidths.
There are also techniques to reduce the impact on users with slow internet connections, such as detecting the connection speed and running video at lower resolution or asking dial-up users to choose whether they want to wait for a Flash version or see a basic text page.
Flash accessibility
The simple answer for accessibility is that Flash is fully compliant with the W3C and US Government's Section 508 accessibility requirements. The Flash format is accessible.
However when developing in Flash, as when developing in HTML or PDF, the accessibility of the final product depends on the skill and experience of the developers.
Provided that it is clear in the business specification that the product must comply with appropriate accessibility requirements, and that the business can provide necessary alt text, transcripts, metadata, navigation alternatives, subtitles and details for a HTML equivalent - as would be required to make a DVD accessible - the Flash application will meet accessibility standards.
However if the business stakeholders and developers do not quality check the work - whether Flash, HTML, or PDF - it can fail accessibility requirements.
So in short, don't point a finger at Flash technology for accessibility issues, look to the business owner and developers.
In summary
There are still many negative myths around about Adobe's Flash technology - I'm not sure why.
However they are largely mistaken.
Flash is an extremely useful and versatile technology, with extremely high penetration and a very small footprint.
It is also fully accessible - provided your developers know how to use it effectively.
So if your agency is considering developing a multimedia application, a video (for online use) or another interactive tool, Flash is a format you should not discount quickly.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Are IT departments and web professionals their own worse enemies? | Tweet |
Forbes magazine has asked whether IT departments are their own worst enemies, in an article, The un-marketing of IT, citing examples such as,
I've seen IT teams engage in this type of behaviour time and time again over my career and the usual outcome is to reduce the business's trust and respect for IT practitioners - not because these actions are necessarily wrong, but simply because they are not explained well to business users.
As the article suggests, if IT teams committed to explaining clearly to users why these types of actions were necessary and provided alternate ways to meet business needs it would be easier to build bridges in other areas.
Extending this to web design and development, I've experienced many websites where unusual navigation or rigid processes are used to move users through a web service to their desired outcome.
These situations meet business requirements and allow the user to achieve their outcome, but are often painful and offputting journeys, which do not lead to repeat usage or goodwill.
Often the user feels like they have survived an obstacle course rather than had a pleasant walk in the sun.
When developing websites (or applications) it is as important to consider the journey - the user experience - as it is to consider the destination.
Simply adding contextual support, removing unnecessary steps and modelling navigation on well-understood models can do wonders to smooth the user's journey and vastly improve the user experience.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Australian history on show - on Flickr | Tweet |
Thank goodness that another Australian institute has taken the step to start placing a pictorial history of Australia up in Flickr.
As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in the article, Australian history gets Flickr treatment, the State Library of NSW has begun loading its photo collection into the online image library.
It can require a great deal of hard work and organisation to get archives into a viable state to place online (as the Powerhouse museum has already done so well).
The benefit is that a priceless visual history of Australia becomes visible to all Australians, rather than requiring people to travel to the photos to see them (such an antiquated notion!).
Eventually it may be possible to aggregate all the individual collections into a national view of Australia's past in a way never before achievable. Then through user-based tagging, comments and search, different pathways through the images can be used to tell different stories, bringing the past back to live via the people who lived through it.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Stop focusing on the fold | Tweet |
Research since 1997 has indicated that the 'fold' in webpages (the bottom of the first visible screen of a webpage) is no longer a hard barrier for people.
However the myth of the fold still persists in many web designs.
Boxes and arrows has hosted an excellent article by Milissa Tarquini, Blasting the Myth of the Fold.
In the article Milissa provides a clear call to web designers to move beyond the fold-based design of the past and recognise that, provided the site's purpose is clear in the first visible screen, placing important content below the fold does not make it unfindable for web users.
She compares the clickthrough rates of items of a number of AOL pages, finding that in many cases links below the fold receive as many, and sometimes more, clicks than items at the top of the page that are supposedly more visible.
One of the interesting findings reported is that due to different browser resolutions and rendering engines, there is little consistency in where the fold occurs in web pages anyway. The most common fold line is experienced by only 10% of web users as variations in PC screens and browsers means that the fold appears differently to different site visitors.
Milissa's advice is to instead provide visual cues and compelling content to encourage users to scroll through your page, thereby no longer forcing designers to cram in all the important content into the first screen that appears.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Australian Human Rights commission launches site to name and shame government agencies failing accessibility measures | Tweet |
Further to my post, Australian Human Rights Commission prepared to name and shame government publishers failing online accessibility, the Human Rights Commission has now launched a website that lists government agencies failing to meet their legal obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
The site, named Webwatch is visible in the Human Right Commission's site.
The media release announcing the site's launch, WebWatch launched amid moves to improve website accessibility, also made reference to a motion passed by the Senate regarding accessibility of information which helps underscore the importance of making government information accessible online.The Senate yesterday agreed to the following motion, put by Tasmania’s Senator Stephen Parry at the request of Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services, Senator Cory Bernardi:
That the Senate:
(a) notes the difficulties experienced by people with a disability, particularly people with vision impairment, in accessing some formats of Senate documents online; and
(b) calls on the Government and the Department of the Senate to ensure all Hansard and Senate committee documents are made accessible via the Internet to people with a disability as soon as they become public.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
US Air Force planning to create its first virtual air base | Tweet |
According to the NextGov article Air Force opens bidding for virtual air base, the US Air Force is preparing to launch a virtual air base where airmen will attend courses in a 3D virtual world.
Simulators have long been used in training pilots and astronauts, due to the fatal consequences of mistakes by novices. This air base takes it a step further, with the Air Force looking to support up to 75 simultaneous users in a geospatially accurate real-time training environment.
As described in the NextGov article,The service initially hopes to create two furnished virtual classrooms that can stream audio and video, and to allow users to design their own avatars in uniform with a variety of physical attributes and appropriate rank. The synthetic base also must include buildings, vegetation, signage, roads, security, a flight line with planes and the ability to exchange documents, photographs and video. Once it buys the software and training, the Air Force expects delivery within two weeks.
The system, termed MyBase, is seen as a key component in the Air Force's future training programs. Here's a video from them explaining more...
This type of learning environment is adaptable to many different functions - including virtual seminars and roadshows, collaborative meetings, presentations, media events, group-based activities and real-time or time-delayed course training. Several universities in the US have already made courses available via 3D virtual worlds such as Second Life.
In Australia we've seen some exploration of these technologies by the Victorian state government in its Melbourne Laneways project for public consumption.
My view is that some of the more immediate benefits for the public sector are in internal use of such environments by geographically diverse agencies to create learning and collaborative environments.
In fact the ATO has demonstrated such an environment already in its ATO Showcase as one of the innovations they are exploring for future roll-out.
For public use of these environments today by government the equity issue needs to be well considered.
Personally I've always felt that gradual degradation is an appropriate approach, providing a virtual 3D environment for broadband users, degrading to voice and powerpoint for 'thin' broadband and dial-up users, down to distributed multimedia for computer users without internet connections and to hardcopy or physical meetings for those without computers.
The other consideration is the proportion of the audience falling into each of these groups, and if this has not been established I'd be very cautious about providing more advanced options.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Australian Human Rights Commission prepared to name and shame government publishers failing online accessibility | Tweet |
On Friday the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, at the Australian Human Rights Commission released a media statement, Climate change secretariat excludes people with disabilities, indicating the Commmision was prepared to 'out' government publishers who did not meet Australia's mandatory accessibility requirements for online material.
“I recently said that, if things did not start to improve, the Australian Human Rights Commission would have to start naming government publishers that are not taking the effort to make their documents sufficiently accessible for people with disability,” said Commissioner Innes.
In recent weeks there have been several accessibility-related media stories in Australia which have helped emphasise the importance of accessibility, not simply as a tickbox for web design, but as a baseline requirement for government material - published online or in other forms.
In this particular case the Human Rights Commission was targeting a specific document released originally only in PDF format. All that was being requested was that it be also published in another format as well (such as HTML) to improve accessibility.
"The Garnaut Review Supplementary Draft Report, Targets and trajectories, was released a week ago, but many people with disabilities still can't access it because it is still only available in pdf format", said Commissioner Innes. "These sort of documents should be published in RTF or HTML as well as pdf so that they can be read by all Australians."
For the record, I had a quick look at the Garnet Climate Change Review website and most of their documents are available in HTML as well as PDF.
It is possible to make modern PDF documents accessible, using the accessibility features in Adobe Acrobat Professional 7 or later. This requires an understanding of the tool and some time for larger documents - a straight PDF conversion of such documents from another format (such as Microsoft Word) generally doesn't meet Australia's legislated accessibility requirements.
Why is achieving accessibility so hard?
Given that PDFs can be made accessible, why does accessibility seem so elusive?
In my experience, across both private and public sector, I've found that generally that the webmasters, content publishers, designers and developers have a clear understanding of their obligations under Australia's mandatory accessibility requirements. They also generally understand and have access to the processes required to achieve it - although sometimes funding and timeframes are very tight.
Outside the web area it is often a different story. Generally most people across the rest of the organisation are less aware of the requirements. This can include document authors, communicators and senior executives.
There's no blame attached to this - accessibility isn't a large part of their jobs. These staff rely on the organisation's web specialists and graphic designers to tell them what they must do and assist them in meeting the requirements.
In fact this media release is a good tool to use in this education process.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Getting the basics right - US presidential hopefuls fail website navigation | Tweet |
Forrester Research has released a report critiquing the navigation of the websites of John McCain and Barack Obama, claiming that both fail basic navigation tests by potential voters.
Nextgov reported in the article, Web sites of both presidential candidates fail to connect with users, that,Forrester used five criteria in its evaluation: clear labels and menus; legible text; easy-to-read format; priority of content on the homepage; and accessible privacy and security policies. McCain's site passed two of those benchmarks: clear and unique category names and legible text. Obama's site succeeded in one area: straightforward layout making it easy to scan content on the homepage.
This came on the back of another report by Catalyst, which tested seven criteria. The Nextgov article quotes that,
Neither site gave priority to the most important information on the homepage, or posted clear privacy and security policies, Forrester concluded.Catalyst asked individuals to perform seven tasks while evaluating each campaign site, including donating money, reading the candidates' biographies and finding their positions on specific policy issues. Obama's site stood out for its design and navigation, but users were confused about certain labels on the homepage, such as "Learn," which contained links to information about the Illinois senator's background and policy positions.
What were the lessons for all government sites?
