Mon, Jul 24, 2006

Tenets for usable, accessible rich interfaces

by Austin Govella

We have specific benchmarks and standards for both usability and accessibility.

Comments

We have specific benchmarks and standards for both usability and accessibility. As we integrate more and more progressive enhancements to our interfaces, making them richer, we’re having to adjust the letter of our laws while making sure we adhere to their spirit.

I’ve used the following thoughts to clarify how we evaluate the accessibility and usability of rich interfaces:

Different browsers can deliver vastly different experiences.
When we evaluate user experience, we must allow different benchmarks for the different qualities of experience delivered by the various browsers.

Non-traditional browsers lack modern support for CSS and javascript.
Non-traditional browsers like screenreaders, mobile devices, and text browsers (like Lynx) do not support rich interfaces consistent with the interfaces we can deliver for traditional, modern browsers.

Traditional browsers offer modern support for CSS and javascript.
Modern browsers — like Mozilla/Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera — allow us to consistently deliver very rich experiences to our users.

Core content and functionality should be available to all browsers.
Typically, this means delivering semantic XHTML that is accessible and usable to both traditional and non-traditional browsers. (You can simulate this by looking at a page with images, CSS, and javascript turned off.)

Rich interfaces progressively enhance usability.
Non-linear layouts, images, plugins, dynamic interfaces that instantly react to user activity, the progressive display of additional complexity, and clearer updates regarding application status make an application more usable.

Rich interfaces should not degrade the ability of non-traditional browsers to access core content and features.
We should identify core content and features and ensure they remain accessible and usable no matter who accesses our application. Progressive enhancements to the interface should not inhibit core support for non-traditional browsers.

Our take-away is that all content and functionality would be identified as either core features, or as enhancements. Core features must be fully accessible and usable in all browsers. No exceptions.

Enhancements to core features may or may not be fully accesssible and usable in all browsers based on resource requirements, as well as how we feel it effects the overall experience for the different browsers: both traditional and non-traditional.

I’ll post a concrete example of some shenanigans so this makes more sense.

I haven’t really seen any specific discussion on how others have adjusted their accessibility and usability policies. I’d love to hear other experiences. Or, if you know of anyone else working over the same issues, feel free to point them out.

Talk About "Tenets for usable, accessible rich interfaces"