David Scotson

To follow up my previous point.

The list of choice responses is one area where the image is linked, when perhaps both the icon and name should be contained within the A tag.

There is also the 'more detailed' view of Participants, again with the image not the name linked to the profile, though in this case there is also a (small, and not very obvious) 'full profile' link.

My big question with regard to accessibility is about the HTML editor. It gets mentioned in the report, but only from the angle of using the editor itself. I've always been concerned about the accessibility of the output. Not just in terms of the code produced, but in the general mindset that it promotes.

For example I'm amazed at the number of times I've seen text like this used for emphasis. I get confused by that, never mind new web users. So the kind of issues are (incomplete and off the top of my head):

• it lets you set the font, from a specific list. If my phone or linux box doesn't have these fonts (or my eyesight isn't good enough to distinguish), and they are being used to convey information, e.g. text in this font is commentary not the core text, then information is being lost.
• issues surround the choice of colour, with not everyone being aware of the impact of color choices and contrast on the color blind and other low vision users.
• you can set levels of heading, but you can also 'fake' the same by changing the boldness and text size
• the previous three items probably fall under the general heading of non-semantic markup and styling that would be completely lost on a speech reader, as well as the specific problems I mentioned.
• part of me is horrified by the uglyness of every poster and editor getting to choose their own font (and size, color etc.) and I can even rationalise it that across a site consistency would help readability and usability of information.
• Many other issues, generally each minor when considered on it's own, where people are encouraged to believe that because it looks fine on their machine, to them, it will be fine for others with different platforms and abilities.
  

(As an aside, I was going to say I was pleased to see that it works with the Google spellcheck so I wouldn't have to continually ignore 'Moodle' as an allegedly mispelled word, but it actually got a bit fankled at the end, and wouldn't stop spellchecking, obviously a javascript clash.)

I *can* see the benefits of a WYSIWYG editor (to a certain extent) especially the associated javascript image placement stuff, and I know there are some available that transparently rewrite the underlying HTML to be clean and somewhat semantic. I've also seen that the HTML editor is configurable, and I assume that it could be tailored or streamlined in some way to be more semantic (e.g. choosing 'monospaced' rather than a particular monospaced font, not allowing random text size/color changes, banning underlining).

So I guess my questions are: does anyone else care? Is this a genuine accessibility issue? Is everyone else just uploading Word .docs, .pdfs, and .ppts rather than creating content in Moodle? I'm surprised that this has never really been discussed or seen as an issue. We (University of Glasgow) currently have a policy of turning the editor off completely. This is not ideal (for sharing documentation/screenshots/tutorials via e.g the docs wiki) and I'd be overjoyed if there was a movement to clear up this issue so that we could re-enter the fold of mainstream Moodlers, but on the other hand, with my current experience I can't honestly recommend the HTML editor be used as it currently stands.

I would welcome any and all thoughts or opinions on this.

Some interesting reading, very good stuff!

I have some minor comments and questions (and one rather larger issue, which probably deserves its own post):

Having left hand and right hand menus may be difficult for screenreaders because they come both before and after the main content of the page. This requires further consideration as to how to make it useful for sighted and blind users alike. P3 (but perhaps should be higher)

In the short term, I believe adding an empty table cell at the top of the two side columns will cause the central column to be read first (followed by the left then right column) in systems that linearize tables. This is certainly a hack (I'm sure I read it somewhere reputable but can't find a link at the moment), but if it works with the accessibility software tested then it might be worth doing. Obviously if a move to CSS positioning is made then the position in the HTML is effectively decoupled from the visual presentation.

Text size cannot be changed via browser menu without setting browser to ignore font sizes first. This makes it difficult for many users who cannot easily read 12pt text. Suggest font size is not fixed in stylesheet, but is relative.

Is this true? I thought the only problem was with Internet Explorer and sites that specified fonts in pixels. I just tried increasing the font size on Moodle.org with IE on XP sp2 and it worked fine, all I had to do was choose View > Text Size > Large (or Largest)

» in breadcrumb trail is read by screenreader as greater than greater than or double right angle bracket.

Is there any particular reasoning for the alternative symbols suggested? I noticed that > ('greater than') wasn't listed, which a) is the standard usage in my experience, b) is logical in the sense that the list is a heirarchy, and c) gets recommended as part of Yahoo's Web User Interface Patterns Library

Abbreviations Mon, Tue, Wed etc may not be meaningful to all screenreader users, but difficult to offer solution that does not take up space

How do screenreaders react to ABBR or ACRONYM tags? I've read that they're patchy or semi-useless for accessibility in some way, but I've never clearly had it explained why.

I agree with Tim and Dan that an empty alt tag is probably appropriate for user images that are situated right next to the users name, as I believe it generally acts as a visual signature or identifier.

I would note that there are areas (well at least one, but I'll have to check exact locations) where a user image on its own is hyperlinked to the user profile. I would suggest that adding the name to those would be a (minor) accessibility improvement.

Has anyone seen Nuvvo? It's a hosted, AJAX-y "Web 2.0" fully-buzzword-compliant LMS/CMS.

www.nuvvo.com

I watched their demo screencast/flash tour and thought it was quite cool. I wasn't as impressed with their Moodle vs. Nuvvo document, which seemed designed to scare people into choosing their service.

I can see how their basic sales pitch has value (basically hosted vs. not-hosted) but it all seems very negative, with a slight hint of desperation. Though that's being charitable with the grey areas (e.g. PHP vs. Java arguments that could rage forever), and ignoring the occasional outright mistake, like claiming their Skype integration is a first about a year after Moodle had the same functionality (I think, never used it myself but it looks the same).

There's also the fact that the Open Source nature of Moodle means there are many hosting options available across the globe, if you want to go that way.

Hopefully they'll soon get over their exitement about choosing the latest fashionable technologies (do normal people, i.e. their target customers, know/care what AJAX, Web 2.0, Hibernate are?), and get enough confidence to not need to dubiously badmouth competitors, as some of their stuff does seem interesting particularly the user interface and business model.

edit: can anyone find any info on Nuvvo's big brother, the Savvica Enterprise LMS? It appears to be missing in action, at least after a brief Google, though it gets talked about a lot.