Cantr II Discussion Forum

Sorry. This forum is now extremely difficult to use, without spending hours trying to navigate. I see you've tried to improve things but it's no good to me.
The old one had everything in a table, and I can navigate tables, but this is impossible.
So goodbye forums. If you have any other blind users, I'm sure you won't have for much longer.

There must be a way of displaying the forum in a non-graphic way that would suit any kind of reader. When phpBB threads get archived they are in a very simple format that is easily browsed. Couldn't it somehow be changed to allow people to browse and interact with current threads in archive format?

Edit: With "non graphic" I meant light graphic/simple layout.

tiddy ogg wrote:Sorry. This forum is now extremely difficult to use, without spending hours trying to navigate. I see you've tried to improve things but it's no good to me.
The old one had everything in a table, and I can navigate tables, but this is impossible.
So goodbye forums. If you have any other blind users, I'm sure you won't have for much longer.

We've been trying to help you, but it seems its too late as you've already accepted it. If there are other blind users i suggest you contact me so we can figure out something to make that is usable for all of you.

EchoMan wrote:There must be a way of displaying the forum in a non-graphic way that would suit any kind of reader. When phpBB threads get archived they are in a very simple format that is easily browsed. Couldn't it somehow be changed to allow people to browse and interact with current threads in archive format?

Edit: With "non graphic" I meant light graphic/simple layout.

That's the point i'm trying to make. I didn't know about blind users or how they view webpages. I've set his layout to the default phpbb3 layout which seems to have not done the job.

May I suggest making an ingame announcement about wanting to be contacted? If the current forum have very low accessibility, maybe very few of the visually impaired players even try to read here anymore.

notsure wrote:This isn't so much of a problem, but something that will take getting used to. The dates (and times) of posts are at the bottom on the left. Sometimes I scroll down to check the date/time, then have to scroll up to start reading.

In 2nd style it is better. Date/time is above the content of post.

KEVEZ wrote:

notsure wrote:This isn't so much of a problem, but something that will take getting used to. The dates (and times) of posts are at the bottom on the left. Sometimes I scroll down to check the date/time, then have to scroll up to start reading.

In 2nd style it is better. Date/time is above post.

The default theme is currently the only one getting setup for the site. If you change themes, i don't know if things will break or not.

Eventually, once things are working, i can change the date to the top. Also, you'll notice on the topic a small arrow next to topics. This arrow takes you to the last unread post.

You said you added a capetcha. That would prevent any new blind users, right?

I tried doing a search for phpBB3 blind support, but found jack. I guess there's just not enough demand out there for someone to come up with a usable mod/skin for it.

Doug R. wrote:You said you added a capetcha. That would prevent any new blind users, right?

I tried doing a search for phpBB3 blind support, but found jack. I guess there's just not enough demand out there for someone to come up with a usable mod/skin for it.

I tried looking too. I think the internet is going to become a bit tougher though as websites are no longer built using tables, but div's instead. I'll jump on the support areas later to see if anyone has any ideas.

Thanks folks for doing your best, but it's the deckchairs on the Titanic thing. Accessibility should be taken into account during the initial developpment, not try to add it afterwards. As I suggested before, throw away your mouse then see how easy it is to get anywhere. I can jump from link to link, but it seems the average forum page has about 300 links, and that's one hell of a lot of tabbing on the offchance that what your looking for is there.

tiddy ogg wrote:Thanks folks for doing your best, but it's the deckchairs on the Titanic thing. Accessibility should be taken into account during the initial developpment, not try to add it afterwards. As I suggested before, throw away your mouse then see how easy it is to get anywhere. I can jump from link to link, but it seems the average forum page has about 300 links, and that's one hell of a lot of tabbing on the offchance that what your looking for is there.

I'm still going to try and do more. Accessibility you think wouldn't change from phpbb2 to phpbb3, considering its running "out of the box" for you.

If you can use Opera then you can try switching to view forum pages in user style insted of author style and create/edit your own style. Maybe it could help...

reCaptcha has an audio option. If it is possible to switch to that, the captcha wouldn't be such a big hurdle for visually impaired. http://recaptcha.net/

tiddy ogg wrote:Thanks folks for doing your best, but it's the deckchairs on the Titanic thing. Accessibility should be taken into account during the initial developpment, not try to add it afterwards. As I suggested before, throw away your mouse then see how easy it is to get anywhere. I can jump from link to link, but it seems the average forum page has about 300 links, and that's one hell of a lot of tabbing on the offchance that what your looking for is there.

Tiddy, firstly let me say that I mean no disrespect by what I say and I hope you can understand my opinion on this matter. Bear in mind it is opinion only. I can't even begin to imagine the frustration you go through with things like this..

You speak about 'accessibility' that needs to be taken into account during initial development.. The blind community, from my personal experience, is a very small minority on the internet.. It almost sounds like you believe web masters NEED to take into consideration the blind community.
This is wholly incorrect.
98% of all standard stimulus when using a computer comes from the screen - it is visual. 2% is sound. A deaf community is much larger than a blind one and is often catered for through subtitles.
But it is expected that a blind person is less likely to use a visual thing like a computer.
I'll give you an example of the predicament you're in.. What you are asking can be alikened to a man with no legs wanting to race in the 100m olympic sprint among those with legs. Sure, he can get prosthetic or robotic but depending on what he gets, he would have an unfair advantage or disadvantage over those with organic legs. It just isn't for him.

I'm colourblind and I'm often excluded from a lot of puzzle games such as colour-matching ones. I used to get a little angry that they didn't offer colour-blind assistance, but why should they? If I had no arms, I won't get angry that they don't send me a neuro-brain-scanner to scan my brain for impulses to play the game...

100%, yes 100% of graphics online are visual. Sure, some might be interpreted by some kind of reader for blind people, but visual graphics are not for the blind.

It is wholly unrealistic and somewhat self-centered to expect a web master to take into consideration blind people.. on the internet.

Again, I can empathise with you very, very, very slightly because of my colourblindness, but I can understand that utter blindness is something no one can empathise with fully without ever having been blind.
So I mean absolutely no disrespect by my opinion posted here, but a computer is a computer, it was designed and always will be designed for those who can see. Just like a man in a coma (ie, a disabled person) can't play sports (hey the sport officials should cater for the person in the coma!), some elements on the internet will not be accessable for the blind.. and a community of 5,000 isn't going to suffer because one person can't access it. My mum used to have an old computer which couldn't access the internet, maybe everyone should chip in to buy her a new one because she can't access these forums and it's unfair.

People here have bent over backwards for you so far and I can see you are appreciative of it, but some of your posts seem to be very condescending and it seems you EXPECT the people here to cater for a disability you'd never expect to find using the internet, let alone a visual computer.

http://w3.org have recommendations for accessibility which has been around since 1999. A well designed website tries to follow these recommendations. The most basic recommendation is that information should be laid out in such a way that any standard non-visual reader can be used to consume the information. I'd say that visually impaired can and should ask for public sites to adhere to recommendations. If you need to design a website that can't be read by any standard reader, you haven't done a very good design job IMHO.

If anyone feels like reading some boring documentation on the subject: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not complaining about Adams work on the Cantr forums. It's phpBB's "fault".

To a level, I agree with you EchoMan.

But at what point do we say enough? How accessible do you want websites to be? What about blind, deaf, mute people who use neuro-transmitters to interpret information? Should all web designers make their websites accessible for them? Armless people who use a special keyboard to navigate? People who don't have enough money to afford broadband, and have to use dialup? Computers that are so old, they can't use Java, Javascript, php, etc - only basic websites?
And before you shoot down the 'old computer' argument, there are as many people using very very old computers (ie the elderly who have no need for new ones) as there are blind people using the internet. So maybe we should make websites compatible for them too.

Where do you draw the line?

'you haven't done a very good design job'. That's an unfair statement. When I was in web design, I never gave a second thought about those who use neuro-transmitters and the blind who use interpreter programs. And I shouldn't - it's not my target market and I don't expect there to be more than 1 of that kind of viewer every two years, if ever (a damn small number).

Web content is advancing forward. One day we might see websites which no longer use text, but rather images so that things can be copyrighted better and displayed nicer. We see Flash websites which don't have a lot of readable text, and blind interpretor programs can't pick this up.

Should the rest of the world suffer and be held back because 0.02% (?) of internet users can't access it? No.


In conclusion, I'd like to apologise in advance if any blind user misinterprets the point I'm trying to make and takes offense. It is not intended and it would be silly to think I am purposely trying to be offensive.
Some things aren't for some people.. it sure is sad that some people are born one way or another, but that's nature, and that's life. At least we live in a civilized society where the weak can be cared for and kept alive, and Darwinism can't take effect.

But when it comes to the point that technology has to be halted or downgraded because a minority we have to support are kicking up a fuss, a line has to be drawn.

I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here and trying to stir up some good conversation/debate.
I'm all ears for hearing another person's opinion on the matter, so please go for it.
Clearly by the length of my posts, you can see this is something I'm new to and interested in talking about, perhaps my opinion can be changed?