About 10 days ago I received an e-mail indicating MLB was trying to get in communication with me. I connected by phone with someone about a week ago.

While the phone conversation was pleasant, I really don't feel there is any meaningful update on the item that's been the topic of my repeated communication here. Specifically, I have asked on multiple occasions about accessibility plans for the At Bat functionality that provides things like pitch speed, box scores and such.

Two things the MLB representative did tell me that I'm sharing here with permission were that research into how to make the At Bat functionality was in progress and that MLB had recently hired someone to work on improving accessibility. The representative further explained that they were trying to have things like pitch speed announced automatically with some audio functionality. Interesting I guess but I don't understand why they don't start by making what exists accessible before trying to get overly creative and doing some kind of automatic audio.

I am appreciative of the communication from MLB but remain disappointed at the lack of progress on making site features more accessible. I understand work has been done on some of the media players so I suppose that's good. But I believe MLB could be doing more and doing it more rapidly.

I'll state up front that I've not done any comprehensive review of the full site. Perhaps efforts are happening in areas I don't use, but in the part of the service I use most frequently and spent money for, there's been no change. Further, MLB seems dismally unaware that the area even has accessibility issues.

Specifically, I purchased a Gameday Audio subscription which allows one to hear the audio from home and away broadcasts for all games. MLB touts a feature called At Bat as new for this year and indicates that At Bat is supposed to include details on the speed of each pitch, live box scores and much more along with the radio broadcasts. Trying multiple combinations of web browsers and screen readers on the Windows platform, this feature still strikes me as100% inaccessible. I've heard things may be better on Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch but have not independently confirmed this.

MLB help on accessibility makes no reference to this At Bat feature. On three separate occasions I phoned a "dedicated" accessibility help line to ask about accessibility of At Bat with the only definitive answer I ever received being no this feature wasn't accessible and there were no plans to make it so. All three phone responses were more interested in telling me how to play audio than anything else. This despite the fact that I opened each call clearly stating I was currently listening to a game.

Assuming you have an MLB.com account with the appropriate subscription, you get to the audio with At Bat experience by going to www.mlb.com/mediacenter and launching the radio feed for a game in action.

I made my first attempt to understand the accessibility of At Bat in early April. That was the phone call that yielded the response that At Bat wasn't accessible and that there were no plans to improve the situation. That's strike one.

Replies from the accessibility community that I must have received some bogus info from MLB prompted a second phone call in the middle of April. That phone call ended with a promise that someone higher up in MLB accessibility would return my call with accurate info about MLB At Bat accessibility. I'm still waiting for that return call. After a month I think it is safe to ring that call up as strike two.

My third call happened on Saturday. This time I was told no fewer than three times how to launch the audio from games. Questions about At Bat were once again met with an "I don't know." At least there was no offer for a phone follow-up that never happened from call #2. And the accessibility ump says, "Strike three!"

We'll give At Bat another turn at getting a hit. This time I've tried the "dedicated" accessibility e-mail address listed within the accessibility info on MLB.com.

Good for MLB to have started some effort. I suppose something is better than nothing. But make no mistake, this is a multibillion dollar business that has no problem telling me how much economic activity it is responsible for each time it wants a new stadium built as the public money faucet is opened. Were this a physical building, the equivalent lack of accessibility would be plain and simple a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So don't tell me you are unable to find the relative few dollars and time it would take to fix these problems now. This is purely a lack of meaningful commitment. Talking is easy. Doing is showing real commitment.

Well good old Citibank, you and I are through. Farewell after more than 24 years of a credit card relationship, five years of a mortgage relationship (love the resale of mortgages) and 20 years of a banking relationship started when you were a pioneer in online banking. You've told me one too many times to go to my nearest branch, which in case you didn't understand the concept of online banking any longer, is more than 900 miles away. And when the latest episode of nonsense was the result of you old Citibank putting a block on a savings account indicating checks shouldn't be written against it for reasons you've yet to explain, well like I said we are just through. Given you opened the account over the phone and it was impossible to write checks for an account for which I had no checks, does it make any sense to block transfer of funds from the account?

Oh yes but there's still my favorite from 1998 when one of your representatives in all seriousness told me if I wanted a cashier's check to make a down payment on a house at the time my best option was to fly to New York City and get the check. And to think I gave you another dozen years. Fool or forgiving, I'm not sure which one that makes me but enough is enough and I've reached my limit.

Transfers have been started, signature cards mailed and research on other options is in full swing. So Citibank, consider this my opening farewell and nice to have known you but I'm on to a world that understands what the online in online banking really means.

Take a browse to an offering to play fantasy baseball for example and count the number of instances of text such as images/trans or perhaps mlb/fantasy/wsfb/index.jsp or another variation depending on how your screen reader handles missing alternative text for actionable links. By my count there are at least three instances of this problem and the bigger issue is that the links in question lead to different locations. This is not some esoteric side feature, 3^rd party text or something else beyond the immediate control of MLB. So while I'm delighted to see MLB getting into the accessibility game, I'd like to see basics like these sorts of issues already fixed because they are just so obviously wrong and disconcerting to the basic user trying to sort out where to go on the site in my experience.

Two recent announcements from Lainey highlight the road this work often travels.

First is an announcement that all Bank of America ATMs in the U.S. are now talking ATMs. This represents more than 18,000 ATM installations and covers more than 15 years of effort since the bank was initially contacted about accessibility. Sure it has taken a long time and a big part of me wishes we never had to go to these efforts to achieve accessibility, but success is still success and when is the last time we could say "all" of anything met any accessibility definition?

Last week at CSUN I was talking about accessible ATMs with a few different people and will say here what I said to those individuals. I think the progress that has been made over the last several years on accessible ATMs is one of the better examples of how accessibility has moved forward from across the spectrum of areas where people have made attempts at improvements. The vast majority of ATMs today seem to at least have audio output and back when I used my first ATM in 1985, audio just wasn't around. It is often hard to measure the positive of accessibility and like many I've used ATMs with relative success without audio. But the degree of confidence and independence I feel when I slide my headphone set into the audio jack on a talking ATM is the feeling I want when I use any technology.

And to be clear, using an ATM without audio access is only relatively successful. It requires memorization of a set pattern of key presses as just one limitation. Good luck if the prompts change as they seem to the one time you really need to use the machine.

The second success is an announcement that Best Buy will start adding tactile keypads to their point-of-sale devices, meaning individuals who are blind can independently enter PINs when making purchases at the stores. This is the way it should be. Conducting business shouldn't require anyone to reveal this level of personal information to anyone else and should support full independence.

Press releases detail several involved in the progress here so congratulations to one and all. And make no mistake, while accessibility efforts like this tend to garner the headlines, I know many who work equally as hard making progress in other arenas and those folks deserve equal credit for what they do.

The short version is that if you have an existing MLB.com account, using the link of https://secure.mlb.com/campaign/login_register.jsp?voucherCode=MLBTV_VOCHR&sku=ATBATPCSUBSEA2010&c_id=mlb&keepWfParams=true&flowId=commerce.cart.noUpfrontRegisPurchase&campaignCode=MLBTV_CMPGN should take you to a page that prompts for username and password and then takes you through the ordering process. There is also a Buy Now option on the page if you do not have an existing account that indicates it will allow you to create an account.

I reached this destination by:

1. Navigating to www.mlb.com.
2. Selecting the Audio/Video link.
3. Choosing accessible gameday audio from the resulting page.
4. Following the subscribe link on the next page.

The price is first indicated as $119.95 per year. But then alt text for the graphic of monthly subscription pricing of $24.95 indicates the rate is an annual rate as well. So MLB, do I get to pick my price for the annual subscription or are you going to correct your alt tags and pay better attention?

Alt text matters and my point here isn't to be picky, although if MLB wants to let me pick the price of $24.95 for an annual subscription, which I could conclude based on current text, that sort of pickiness is just fine with me.

For the curious, here is how the alt text reads to a screen reader.

$119.95/year

$24.95/year

And here is the relevant section of the web page HTML. Note how the graphical names for the .png files go as far as indicating monthly and year for the images but that the alt text on the monthly pricing is incorrect.

            <td class="feature_premium">

                <div class="link_purchase"><a href="https://secure.mlb.com/enterworkflow.do?flowId=commerce.cart.noUpfrontRegisPurchase&campaignCode=MLBTV_CMPGN&voucherCode=MLBTV_VOCHR&keepWfParams=true&c_id=mlb&sku=MLBTVSUBPRSEA2010" onclick="bam.tracking.trackLaunchLink('https://secure.mlb.com/enterworkflow.do?flowId=commerce.cart.noUpfrontRegisPurchase&campaignCode=MLBTV_CMPGN&voucherCode=MLBTV_VOCHR&keepWfParams=true&c_id=mlb&sku=MLBTVSUBPRSEA2010',{genericExternalLinkTracker:{tracked:'MLB: MLB.TV Subscriptions: Premium Yearly Click'}});"><img src="/mlb/images/subscriptions/y2010/regseason/btn_119.95.png" border="0" class="png" alt="$119.95/year" /></a></div>

                <div class="link_purchase"><a href="https://secure.mlb.com/enterworkflow.do?flowId=commerce.cart.noUpfrontRegisPurchase&campaignCode=MLBTV_CMPGN&voucherCode=MLBTV_VOCHR&keepWfParams=true&c_id=mlb&sku=MLBTVSUBPRMON2010" onclick="bam.tracking.trackLaunchLink('https://secure.mlb.com/enterworkflow.do?flowId=commerce.cart.noUpfrontRegisPurchase&campaignCode=MLBTV_CMPGN&voucherCode=MLBTV_VOCHR&keepWfParams=true&c_id=mlb&sku=MLBTVSUBPRMON2010',{genericExternalLinkTracker:{tracked:'MLB: MLB.TV Subscriptions: Premium Monthly Click'}});"><img src="/mlb/images/subscriptions/y2010/regseason/btn_monthly_24.95.png" border="0" class="png" alt="$24.95/year" /></a></div>

Still I find it kind of ironic that when browsing to the MLB audio/video information page I find text telling me what follows is an advertisement and the same old nonsense of missing alt text on the ad itself. My money is as good as anyone else's so come on advertisers and MLB, market to me too.

For the curious, here is how a screen reader presents the experience in question.

Below is an advertisement.

168544/r15_cm_b12_728x90

The string of gibberish is presented by the screen reader because the item is a link. Screen readers present some form of the underlying URL when links without text or proper alternative text for images are included in a web page. The screen reading user still needs to be able to take action on the link in question. The screen reader has no way to know whether the link is important or not.

I'm also a big fan of giving back to the information community on the web. My philosophy is that if you find the info on sites like Yelp of value, you should contribute by sharing your experiences.

Recently I wanted to write a review for a restaurant and started by trying to select the star rating. Sadly web site construction here leaves these rating selections very inaccessible to keyboard and screen reader users. Hint, most things that say "roll your mouse over" are a good sign that there's likely to be an accessibility challenge unless more effort is made to make such a construction accessible. Yelp doesn't appear to have made this effort.

I recognize that even today the vast majority of folks creating web sites do not know about accessibility. I've left the folks at Yelp feedback about the issue and suggestions on how to correct it. I'll consider my first attempt to write a review the appetizer for using the web site and hope with feedback and action from Yelp the sour taste I have today can be replaced with something more palatable and accessible.

For those so inclined, feedback for the folks at Yelp can be left on their contact page.

Earlier today, contacts at the University of Wisconsin informed me that CBS indicated the accessibility issues with the All Access site were fixed with an update last week. While I have not had an opportunity to do extensive testing, I can say my preliminary explorations have yielded mixed results. I tried the site with a range of screen readers including JAWS, Window-Eyes, NVDA and System Access. I also tried accessibility verification tools such as Inspect and UI Spy that verify exposure of accessibility info, independent of a screen reader.

Perhaps the biggest issue thus far is that I was not able to successfully register for an account using any combination of the aforementioned tools. Some of the controls required to complete registration seem to either be missing necessary accessibility information or not read reliably by the various screen readers. Most notably were some combo boxes needed to complete details around birth date.

After further exploration, the real issue with the controls in question seems to be that for accessibility purposes the controls are reported as combo boxes. Traditionally alt+down arrow should expand such controls. However in this case it would seem that one must use space to expand the combo boxes. I am not certain if this is a limitation of the site or the control used at this point.

It is clear that CBS has done some work here. Many of the controls now provide names for accessibility. I am also able to launch content that does not require an account, that is the free content.

Although it is less than efficient, keyboard access also seems to have been addressed to at least provide some level of access. Still I found myself having to tab numerous times, sometimes 15 or 20, to reach a control after making a selection. And according to a sited colleague, visual focus when I was tabbing wasn't obvious and at times appeared as if I was tabbing to items that were not visible.

Thus far my results seem mixed at best. Over the next few days I'll try the site further and report here with more comprehensive and concrete details. From Twitter and e-mail comments I know others have tried to use All Access. You may want to try it again and see what mileage you have. If you do give it a try, leave a reply in the comments here so we can gather some collective experiences.

I kicked off the day reading an article from SFGate, the San Francisco Chronicle's online site claiming the web was more accessible to people with disabilities. In my opinion this is both a poor article and a very misleading headline. There's a world of difference between the utility offered by the web and the accessibility of that utility.

Articles like the one I'm talking about here always trot out people with disabilities and site how things like online shopping, recreation and the dozens of other things one can do on the web are such a boon to the population of people with disabilities. I won't disagree with the benefits of an online world. I know firsthand that I do things online today that were at best tedious and in some circumstances all but impossible before introduction of various online offerings.

Still it is a mistake to equate this with real web accessibility. I think half the reason people with disabilities tolerate such a pathetic state of true accessibility is because the alternative to doing things online is that much more of a challenge.

Back to my experiences of today. I read an article from the Seattle Times talking about an interesting burger joint. I'm someone who enjoys a good burger from time to time so decided to check out the menu for the restaurant.

So I surfed on over to The Counter's web site. I chose to view the online menu and selected the city of Seattle. I was perplexed when I still couldn't find any meaningful menu and only alt text for a graphic that read, "Build Your Own Burger Menu". It turns out the menu is just a graphical representation of the menu. There's no real text to be read by a screen reader.

Again I recognize that one web site can hardly be used to measure the state of web accessibility at the debut of 2010. Still in my experience my experience with the burger joint is far more common than any improvements in web accessibility and in general I think the web is really not getting more accessible. How about you? What are your experiences?

Earlier I wrote about my hope to see improved accessibility from CBS College Sports All Access. As of that writing I was told the accessibility fixes were expected on November 30. That day came and went with no update.

I received a brief update today from the people I've been exchanging e-mail with at the University of Wisconsin about the accessibility issues.

What's that you say? You've read this before. Yeah, that's about how I felt when I received the latest update from contacts at the University of Wisconsin. I had been promised that accessibility issues with a streaming media site for Badger athletics would be corrected by the end of November. This was by my count at least the fifth promised deadline for such fixes to be missed, dating back to September.

I no longer have any meaningful date for improved accessibility beyond a promise to "hold CBS's feet to the fire," and to involve UW legal folks if there is no progress by the end of the year. Consider me confused because one would think UW legal officials were involved when any contract establishing the relationship between CBS and the UW was signed. One would think the dozens of other universities using this service would also be calling for accessibility fixes.

As I've said earlier, I will give the UW and CBS some credit for making arrangements for me to get access to the streaming links for broadcasts of interest. Basically at this point I e-mail some contacts at CBS prior to the start of a broadcast and I'm provided a direct link that launches the media stream. I will also say that the UW has not yet charged me the equivalent fees for the online service, although I've made it clear I'm willing to pay the appropriate fees.

Still, this policy is not documented anyplace on the UWBadgers.com site or CBS site. Further, meaningful accessibility should mean I and others get access to the full functionality of the web site in question without having to ask each time. For example I have no access to archived broadcasts which I believe is made available on the main site.

It is my contention that as a public institution, the UW and any other publicly funded institution is required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act to make services accessible. This is my personal opinion and I'm not a lawyer. Still if you are trying to access online broadcasts of a similar institution and are having difficulty due to the accessibility issues with the All Access site, I'd encourage you to make your concerns known to the appropriate people at the institution in question.

As a graduate of the University of Wisconsin I am disappointed in the level of accessibility and attention this issue has received. The UW may not be responsible for developments from CBS, but the UW is certainly responsible for the accessibility of the resources they choose to use, no matter who creates those resources.

As a Badger fan who enjoys the entertainment college athletics offer, I am saddened to have the experience soured by this lingering accessibility issue that is no closer to resolution some three months after I first brought it to the UW's attention.

I'm sure just about everyone has heard of Morningstar, the financial research giant. The company's star ratings pepper the financial world, with Morningstar ratings being used in any credible financial research source.

In addition to providing data to the financial industry, Morningstar offers research tools directly such as their mutual fund screener.

This screener is filled with examples of missing alt text. The one that caught my attention in particular is the missing alt text on a series of checkboxes for selecting the Morningstar ratings you want to include in your search. Graphics are used along with checkboxes to choose star ratings from 1 to 5. But without any alt text, anyone who is not able to use images, such as screen reading users, only gets to know that there are a series of checkboxes.

One would hope that the bread and butter for which a company is known would get a bit more accessibility attention at some point. Then again as I said web accessibility issues are widespread. No secret I know but this Morningstar example is yet another to add to the collection when trying to illustrate why accessibility, alt text in particular, matters.

I received a brief update today from the people I've been exchanging e-mail with at the University of Wisconsin about the accessibility issues.

we received this info from cbs last Thursday. There was a setback in producing the ADA accessibility components for the Silverlight media player. CBS is saying end of November now.

I'm communicating with the University of Wisconsin folks because it is my belief that they are ultimately responsible for ensuring the accessibility of their online offerings. Obviously they'd be better off if they'd chosen a mechanism that was directly accessible and I'm disappointed they didn't do a better job when choosing the CBS product at the outset.

The lack of accessibility in the online sports broadcasts is a bit ironic, given the same university of Wisconsin is referenced in an article talking about universities that have said no to Amazon's Kindle over a lack of accessibility.

As I mentioned earlier, folks from the UW and CBS have been both polite and good about finding alternatives that allow for access to the online broadcasts while the accessibility issues are resolved. This by no means excuses the lack of direct accessibility but is a far cry better than frequently happens during these sorts of issues. As I'm sure anyone in the accessibility arena knows, it is just as likely that I could have been left out in the cold here.

Still, we are now two months beyond the initial promised accessibility resolution so the old "just a bit longer" is starting to wear a bit thin.

Trying the application with JAWS, Window-Eyes, NVDA and even Narrator produced nothing meaningful. JAWS was silent as I tabbed around beyond announcing a title of the opening screen telling me to register the software. Using any method of access there was nothing else perceivable to me from the application. Window-Eyes only announced "custom control" as I tabbed around. NVDA simply said "pane". Narrator announced a few more window names when I did a full screen read with crl+shift+space but this was still of no meaningful value as tabbing or trying any other interaction still produced silence.

Hunting around on Amazon's web site I found no mention of accessibility for the software. Again disappointing but not surprising I suppose.