RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Again, referring specifically to screen reader users, my anecdotal experience supporting several users who are blind in my job is that Rahul is most of the time correct. Good structured code and Standards Based Design with proper lists, headings, and code that's not abused is more useful to these users than the ever popular Skip to Content. However, (there's always a however) we cannot forget about our users who are sighted, or as my colleague says light dependent, and cannot or should not use a mouse. Many folks with mobility impairments navigate using the TAB key and Enter. They do benefit from VISIBLE Skip Links to speed their navigation. For these folks, it's not so much about reading the information or finding a section of content, it's about getting to an interface element and activating it or some such. Skip Links can save them several whacks on the TAB key on their way to their goal. Just my 2 yen on the topic. Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies Accessible Technology Services Support (ATSS) phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages. It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing it wrong... - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru, http://www.thenoodleincident.com However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. While there is life, there is hope. - Stephen Hawking -Original Message- deleted for space *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)
As a Person with a Disability, I prefer Person/User/Whatever with a Disability. People First Language. Although, I tend to refer to myself as a gimp, but that's really something used within some parts of the wheelchair culture. Wouldn't recommend you use it. :) Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages. It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing it wrong... - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru, http://www.thenoodleincident.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:54 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/) Hi John, Thanks for the resources - really interesting (and I don't think you're being contrary). Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing services and accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Foliot - WATS.ca Sent: 04 August 2005 13:15 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/) Nicola Rae wrote: Hi, Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the correct terms to use are: In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled users'. In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities' - it should be 'physical impairment'. As I also thought it was users with disabilities. Nikki For What it's Worth Dept About 3 years ago, I received permission to mirror the following Words With Dignity (http://wats.ca/resources/wordswithdignity/35), created by the Active Living Alliance, a NGO here in Canada (http://www.ala.ca/content/home.asp). So, not to be contrary to Nikki, it seems that it may also be a cultural thing, as the ALA suggest Person(s) with a disability. Perhaps their final advice is most relevant: Remember, appropriate terminology changes with the times. If in doubt, ask. Most people with a disability will be more than willing to help you. HTH JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Conferences on Standards and Accessibility
Title: Conferences on Standards and Accessibility Hello, all. Hope this is not OT to the list. Is anyone aware of any conferences in the United States focused on accessible Web design with Standards? I know there are some good ones overseas in Europe, Australia, and Japan, but have found few in the U.S. I know that the disability conferences CSUN and ATIA often have some information on these topics as well as web/multimedia gatherings like SXSW, but I was wondering if there were any solely devoted to making accessible Web sites. A colleague of mine did find the 8th Annual Accessing Higher Ground: Accessible Media, Web and Technology Conference in Colorado this November. It is described as being for education, businesses, and Web media designers. http://www.colorado.edu/ATconference/ Just wondering if anything else like it is out there. Thanks! Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Excellent analogy! As a person who supports assistive technology for our companies users, I would expand the process to include the makers of the OS that the browser runs on, not to mention hardware makers, video driver writers, the assistive technology developers, etc. All must cooperate. Sadly, they hardly do. So, whether you're talking accessibility to people with disabilities or just old/bad browsers, the developer of the web app must pick up the slack so users aren't excluded. I'm all for nudging people to upgrade to the latest versions, however, even if it's IE (which I'm forced to use at work, but at least it's v.6). I know, I've drifted off-topic... Christopher Kelly (GM22) phone: 309-763-7069 State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility Hi all, Jumping in on all these architectural analogies... nobody seems to have made this point: ultimately EVERYONE has some level of responsibility, since everyone is and will remain involed. Let's continue the analogy, for a new building: 1) The government sets out physical access requirements for buildings in broad terms (there are also other bodies which produce building standards but we'll keep this simple). Web equivalent is the W3C. Their responsibility is to get the standards right and communicate them in such a manner that people know what to do. They also need to keep things in the realm of possibility - W3C has a checkpoint to ensure that a proposed standard is actually possible, governments do not specify that venues provide levitating wheelchairs. 2) The architects (and possibly structural engineers) have to interpret the standards and apply them correctly in the design for the building. They will have to find the balance between the goals of the building and the many standards the building will have to meet. They also have to make sure the building won't fall down ;) The architect will probably also have to wrangle the interior decorators to ensure their wonderful additions don't contravene critical requirements. The web equivalent is the web developer, who has to sit between the client, the W3C, the graphic designer and the application developers/programmers. Some people might call this the Web Producer, but most of us don't get the lofty title nor the lofty pay ;) 3) Then the builders/tradespeople come into the picture. They are responsible for the actual physical creation of the building according to the plan. If they don't follow the plan they have failed in their own responsibility (ignoring the legal horrors of real-world architecture). Web equivalent is the web/application developer(s) who actually put the whole thing together. 4) The government inspects and enforces the standards. This area is starting to take shape for the web, with test cases appearing in various countries. It is a very weak area, though. 5) Then the public comes into the building. They will be arriving in wheelchairs which don't levitate, shoes with no grip, they might be drunk, who knows. Nobody who built the place can make them all wear decent shoes (so they don't slip on the stairs) nor can they make everyone's wheelchair levitate. Ultimately people should be allowed to choose whatever shoes they wear. But, they also have to accept falling down if they turn up drunk wearing shoes with no grip. The shoe/wheelchair manufacturers might be grossly negligent but they'll get away with it. Just like browser manufacturers get away with failure to comply with standards. No matter how well any one group/individual conforms to the overall goals; they will always have a responsibility since their part of the process must still be done well. Even if wheelchairs do start levitating, buildings will have to be designed and built with enough space allowed for them to fly around. Nobody will ever become free of responsibility. So 1) The W3C will always have to make good standards and update them. 2) Clients will always have to resource projects well enough to facilitate compliance. 3) Web developers will always have to apply standards properly. 4) User Agent manufacturers will always have to conform to standards. 5) Users will always have to maintain a reasonable level of technology to make use of the standards. The problem right now? Only (1) and (3) are currently happening with any level of success; with (3) carrying the hardest tasks. It's unfair but life is not fair. That's why web developers and architects like to go to the pub ;) h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
RE: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility
Possibly so, but is an architect being given the short straw by being required to include ramps and elevators in the design of a building? It has to be done because of the 'shortcomings of my assistive technology, my wheelchair, that cannot climb stairs or levitate. I agree that better browser features, CSS support, etc. should be demanded. We do that by using better browsers ourselves and telling friends, relatives, etc. to do the same. Enough people switch to Firefox, Opera, or whatever, and Mr. Softy will eventually make improvements in IE. Of course, I'll have my levitating wheelchair before that happens... Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:52 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility Hi all, I'm coming to this very much as a newbie, so be gentle with your response: I feel that, in many ways, we as web designers are getting the short straw by being asked to counteract the shortcomings of the browser/PC people, rather than the other way around. For example, Opera has a really great zoom feature (as we know) and I can't help feeling that there should be a push to 'demand' this of all browsers. It even works with Flash of course . .. . I haven't heard anything about work going on from this aspect of things (maybe I just don't know about it) but feel that if there isn't such work in progress there should be! What exactly is the position? I hope this isn't OT - I considered not because accessibility is a part of standards. Thanks for your thoughts, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
FW: [WSG] ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? in Win IE6?
Understood, but what's the harm in just dropping the statement (namespace?) altogether and getting on with the rest of my day? :) Christopher Kelly (GM22) phone: 309-763-7069 State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? in Win IE6? Hi Christopher, No. But you should probably serve up XHTML 1.0 Strict to IE and 1.1 to Mozilla/FireFox/Opera. Here is the link on how to do this: http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=16A6EBD1-9EEC-4611-98C8-C0F6234B9737 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Christopher M Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: [WSG] ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? in Win IE6? Hello! I was just beginning to read through the W3C's docs on XHTML 1.1 and noticed the following example they provide of an XHTML 1.1 strict document: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en head titleVirtual Library/title /head body pMoved to a href=http://vlib.org/;vlib.org/a./p /body /html While they do state the XML declaration is not required, they urge its use. My questions is: doesn't the XML declaration send IE6 (Windows) into quirks mode if it's present? It seems like I read that recently. Can anyone verify? Thanks! Great list! Very informative! Christopher Kelly (GM22) phone: 309-763-7069 State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
