It all started when I saw this tweet:
Infographic all designers who care about creating accessible web pages should have on their wall http://t.co/Wd44tcKC #Accessibility #edtech
— Dominik Lukes (@techczech) April 11, 2012
It was almost 23:30 and I was tired (I know! That’s what being a parent does to you) but I had to be up because Orion, our 5 month old son, was demanding milk and I’m afraid you just can’t reason with him when he gets like that. So, bottle in one hand, smart phone in the other, I followed Dominik’s link to see what was so great about this infographic.
I liked what I saw. I do care about creating accessible web pages and I thought this was a neat way to present some good accessibility tips. But I did find it odd that this document about web accessibility, which included the tip: “Use True Text Whenever Possible”, was presented as a solid image file. True, they had included the contents as plain text below the graphic but – I reasoned, as my brain protested it had done enough thinking for the day – as the content was fundamentally just text, why didn’t they practise what they preached and “use true text”, relying on CSS to present it in its graphical form?
But it was still a useful guide, so I thought I would do my bit for the community and retweet with a little commentary of my own:
Ironic that it's one big PNG, not styled real text MT @techczech Infographic about creating accessible web pages http://t.co/G7hWceYE
— Chris Throup (@christhroup) April 11, 2012
Still feeding Orion, I looked for an inspiring video to watch on TED.com (A TED speaker’s worst nightmare http://on.ted.com/BYYt which I found quite amusing). Finally, when I had almost finished feeding Orion, my phone beeped at me to tell me there was a new “update involving me”. Sure enough, Dominik had seen my modified retweet and replied, leading to a brief conversation, which you can follow on twitter.com if you are wont to do so, before I gave in to the glories of sleep.
In the morning, I awoke to find another “update involving me”:
@christhroup Ironic that you didn't bother to notice the accessible text version on the same page. @techczech
— Jared Smith (@jared_w_smith) April 12, 2012
I replied; and so did he:
@christhroup Exactly. "When possible." Real text isn't really feasible in an infographic.
— Jared Smith (@jared_w_smith) April 12, 2012
But who was this person? A moment with Google revealed the truth: Jared W Smith is the Associate Director of WebAIM, the organisation who had created the infographic in question.
Hmm. Had I caused offence in my brevity? I believed I had a valid point, but now I was beginning to wonder if I had misunderstood some subtle aspect of the situation. Why wouldn’t real text be feasible in an infographic?
So, to cut a long story short (do I hear you cry “too late for that”?) I set out to demonstrate my thinking by recreating the infographic as CSS-styled, real text. The result can be found at http://throup.org.uk/infographic/ and is probably embedded below, if your web browser allows it.
Apart from the obvious, there are a couple of other minor differences between my version and the original:
- The logo is not exactly identical, but I think it’s close enough to prove the concept. I’m sure it could be more accurate if I spent a little time tweaking!
- The graphics and colours accompanying each statement are close imitations, but I do not have access to the source images so I had to recreate them.
- In the original, the header and footer are set off from the main content by some nicely designed, angled gradients. I left them out because:
- I am not a designer, so it would have taken longer than I cared to spend to recreate then nicely; and more importantly
- I wanted the infographic to scale nicely to match whatever text size the viewer chose for their web browsing experience. Assuming they were rendered as bitmaps, those diagonals would quickly lose any sense of quality as they increased in size.
- Because my version is real text, I am able to include links to articles on the WebAIM website to expand on each point. WebAIM did this in their plain text version, but obviously not in their graphic.
Now I have spent a little time working with it, a couple of other points have begun to niggle:
-
Make Sure Links Are Recognizable
I can’t fault the original version for this because the links weren’t part of the graphic. But, in imitating that original look, I now have some links with no visual cue as to their existence. -
Don’t Rely on Color Alone
The original graphic clearly grouped the tips into four categories. I say clearly; the categories are distinguished by colour and some separating space. Surely we can do a little better than that?
To resolve those niggles, I created an alternative stylesheet (most web browsers provide a means to switch stylesheets; this alternative sheet is titled “Better?”) which adds an underlined style to all of the links and also reveals the category headings which I have added to the page structure.
So, there we have it. An accessible infographic. I know it isn’t perfect – it was knocked up in an afternoon – but I think it proves the concept. If you have any suggestions for further improvements, please leave them in the comments and, if appropriate, I will try to incorporate them.
Hi Chris, thanks for your work and writing on this. I really like what you did. What I would really like is to see a screencast of you creating the text version. When I first looked at it, I felt this would be really difficult to do but then I looked at your beautiful clean code and realized that it was probably easier for me than trying to replicate the same thing in Gimp or something. But most designers don’t think linearly, so it would be interesting to show them how easy it is to use code to create impactful visuals (although bitmaps are still important).
I also just noticed that the Webaim page now links to your version right under the picture.
You make a lot of good points – I think the one about using color only to distinguish sections is particularly important. The Webaim accessible version is actually completely section free which certainly makes it more difficult to get to grips with.
I like the Better stylesheet – but I think very few people use that feature (I had to Google how to do it) so it would be better to have some sort of JS switcher.
But I still feel there is a benefit to having a JPEG/PNG version. For example, it is a lot easier to embed (still). The HTML version behaves differently on zoom when standalone and when on a separate page. When using a text only zoom with NoSquint in Firefox, the embedded version increases the text whereas the standalone page increases the page size first. But at 200%, some graphics cover the text. This is not a problem with the Webaim accessible version. I think some form of responsive design would be a good addition (but it’s really hard without a framework).
For printing, a PDF might be better but for distribution on the web a PNG /JPEG file would be better.
I would be really interested in some research investigating the processing of infographics by people with print disabilities including dyslexia, color sensitivity, visual difficulties, ADHD, etc.
We often try to base what we do for accessibility on quite general principles and it would be useful to have some more concrete case studies that relate exactly to the infographic genre.
[…] background-position: 50% 0px; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; } chris.throup.org.uk – Today, 11:34 […]
Hi, Dominik. Thanks for the great feedback. If you think it would be useful to others, I’d be happy to document the creation process, either in a screencast or another blog entry. To me, the approach was obvious from when I saw the original version, but I am the kind of person who is more comfortable hand-coding SVG than opening up a graphics package!
And thank you for the complement on my “beautiful clean code”; to be honest, I would prefer it to be cleaner, but I had to bodge it a little to achieve the visual effect. I’m still a little ashamed of “
<span id="igT4">Desi<span class="cutout">g</span>ners</span>
“, but I’ll still sleep tonight!I will try to add a JS stylesheet switcher to the page; I hadn’t bothered so far because the “Better?” stylesheet was an experiment on top of another experiment.
I think you’re right about there being benefits to a JPEG/PNG version in some circumstances. But if you start with a HTML/CSS version, you can take a screenshot; if you begin with the PNG then it’s not so simple to get to an accessible form. Your comments also highlight another consideration: I built this version on my home PC, running openSUSE Linux; I have only tested it in the browsers I have available to me in that environment. HTML, by its very nature, will not deliver identical results to every person accessing it. You’re absolutely right that some form of responsive design would be a good addition if this was being presented as the definitive version instead of an experiment to prove a point.
When it comes to accessibility – and web design in general – I am an amateur; I am a professional trainer and I just happen to happen to have an interest in this field. If there was some good research into this area then I am sure the professionals could take this a lot further. The fact that (at this precise moment in time) this blog post, which I published less than 2 hours ago, is result number 6 in a Google search for “accessible infographic” suggests to me there is a lot more work to be done in this area!
Thanks for your work and thoughts on this. As one that helped create the infographic and that made the (rather snarky, I admit) response to you, I have a few thoughts…
The nature of infographics are, of course, graphical. We primarily use it in print. The PNG works better in print and for embedding. And we naturally considered the target audience – designers.
While the infographic say, “Use true text whenever possible”, it should probably read, “Use true text when it makes sense to.” We would not want to suggest that such things must always be presented as true text or that images (assuming alternative text is provided) are somehow contrary to accessibility.
Even the staunch WCAG 2.0 guidelines only require text-only when text can achieve the same visual presentation as the graphic (presumably without requiring complex styling, font embedding, etc. as you have implemented in your version).
Your infographic is a great prototype and shows some whiz-bang styling, but it really is no more or less accessible than the text version that we had already provided. I think it’s great work! In accessibility, we have to learn to fight the right battles. Suggesting that a text alternative is somehow less accessible than text-native is probably not the best battle to fight. It would do little for accessibility and would simply frustrate designers, most of whom won’t understand the underlying mark-up necessary for good accessibility anyway.
Nice work Chris, I often find it faster these days to get something very beautiful looking together in html & css than photoshop or illustrator.
Adobe are shooting themselves in the foot with their poor typographic support in desktop apps, while seeming to support webfonts by buying typekit – all a bit confusing.
Microsoft created http://lostworldsfairs.com to show how seriously they are taking typography and design in html & css while twitter’s 2010 year in review html infographic was an eye opener to the masses http://yearinreview.twitter.com/2010
Sites like http://webstandardssherpa.com show you can be accessible and sexy looking – they are no longer mutually exclusive.
So while i agree you need to choose the right battles, isn’t it time organisations fighting for an accessible web stopped employing designers who “won’t understand the underlying mark-up necessary for good accessibility anyway” and started employing those who can make sexy & accessible content?
Cheers
Stuart Lamour
oh yeh – mozilla contest for html inforgraphics – http://paulrouget.com/e/infographicsInHTML5/
Thanks for coming by, Jared. As both you and Dominik have pointed out, there are clear advantages to the static image in certain contexts. I certainly haven’t intended to suggest a text alternative is less accessible – there are very few fundamental differences between the raw HTML code used by my version and your text version – but, to me, it feels wrong to take that approach when you don’t have to; it could almost be perceived as a form of segregation.
I agree with you about identifying the right battles; it is definitely something we all have to learn in our own environment. Saying that, you and I are in completely different environments. For me, this was an interesting experiment and a chance to explore what we can do to make materials appropriate for all. Fundamentally my version is no more accessible than your plain text alternative (although I do think you should add the section headers). But, given a true choice between one version for all, or a main version coupled with an accessible alternative, the former feels better to me.
Other than pure accesibility, the HTML version has other advantages, too. Here’s a couple:
I really appreciate your thoughts, Jared, and I am especially grateful that you have allowed me to do this with your content.
Thanks for stopping by, Stuart. I challenge you to get “sexy” included in WCAG version 3!
Interesting to hear about the Mozilla contest. Did they ever publish the interesting ones? I can’t see any in their June 2011 archives.
[…] Throup’s Accessible infographics blog […]