McLaughlin, Gail G wrote:
We always ask the client if they require that the site comply
with accessibility.
Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality
website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature...
In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy
I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I
think the same exact way.
The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no
extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the
proper, because the methods used for accessibility are
I'm glad to hear that so many of us are experts on law and other topics
that have nothing to do with web standards whatsoever.
What does this suit have to do with web standards?
Well, perhaps down the road somewhere more strict governing will be put
in place.
Do we want the government
My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping
centre client: do you want wheelchair access?
Elizabeth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Geoff Pack
Sent: Monday, 8 October 2007 3:10 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote:
We always ask the client if they require that the site comply
with accessibility. The response ranges from What is
accessibility? to we'll worry about that later to No!
So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards?
Ouch.
Completely agree with most of the comments. Accessibility ensures that
the site is usable, not just for disabled users but for ALL your
users.
It should come at no extra cost and only if the designer goes out of
their way to deliver an inaccessible site does it become a problem.
Adding alt
Hi,
window.event.keycode works for IE to capture key input, not for Firefox.
Firefox throws an error window.event has no properties.
Sowhat code can be used for both?
*** My HTML snippet:
body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE();
...
/body
*** My Javascript snippet:
function setCmdKeyIE() {
One of the first requirements of accessibility is use a doctype with valid
code. Their site is full of coding errors and I can't believe that it has
been created by any web designer (possibly a graphic designer? ;-).
As you suggest, it could well be that they are using some kind of monster
CMS
Hi, check the following to get the answer:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Migrate_apps_from_Internet_Explorer_to_Mozilla#Event_differences
Max.
2007/10/8, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
window.event.keycode works for IE to capture key input, not for Firefox.
Firefox throws an
Hi Simom,
change your code as follows:
HTML:
body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE(event);
JAVASCRIPT:
function setCmdKeyIE(event) {
if(event==null) event = window.event;
var cmdkeycode = ;
if (event.keyCode != 13 event.keyCode != 33
event.keyCode != 34 event.keyCode 112 ) return;
Your penis is as hard to find as an itty bitty needle. With Penis Enlarge Patch
it will be shown even from the distance.
http://www.koppalt.com/?wluhmnlbd
Turn your penis from a peasant to a Nobel.
bring down a subject with it at the present German range
Hi,
I found a cross-browser (IE and Firefox) method on www.javaranch.com
(which is down at the moment).
1) Dispense with onkeydown in body and use document.onkeydown instead.
2) Then in the key-handling script...declare evt as a parameter.
3) Then populate nbr with event.keyCode if
Hi,
Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
The following HTML works (in QUIRKS) for both IE and
Firefox...alertING Key Pressed!...erm...when a key is pressed.
html lang=en-US
head
title
Keypress testing.
/title
Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You ask
do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies, quality
means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care.
Here in lies the problem. It can be the worst tag soup inaccessible non
standards nightmare, and
Im at college at the moment, i tryed it with and without the doctype and it
worked fine. They are using IE6, i cant test on IE7 until i get home.
If everything is valid i cant see there being a problem, but there obviously
it.
Regrads
James
On 10/8/07, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
Works fine for me (IE7 and IE6) with and without DOCTYPE. Are you
running it locally, and if so did you ignore the IE warning about
scripting/activeX ?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
On 10/8/07, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
The following HTML works (in QUIRKS) for both IE and
Firefox...alertING Key Pressed!...erm...when a key is pressed.
html lang=en-US
head
title
Gary Barber
Why bother taking the time to make something that is good
quality when
at the end of the day the client just wants cheap and functional and
looks nice.
Professionalism?
So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and
accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
as in the long run, they'll ALWAYS be more trouble than they're worth
Yep. An old truism: the less they pay, the more they want.
But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not*
find it quicker and easier (and hence
Hi,
So I fixed the problem by specifying...
document.onkeydown = handleKeyPress;
...rather than inline in the bodytag as before...and now IE and
Firefox both work and both validate.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd;
html lang=en-US
Gary Barber wrote:
You ask do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies,
quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care.
Here in lies the problem.
That shouldn't be seen as a problem.
For me at least it takes longer, and cost more, to create a site
consisting of
From the tone of the many comments on this topic it appears there are a lot
of people commenting who haven't been internal in a large company and expect
that outsiders saying should will work to change internal organizational
perceptions and direction. It won't.
Most people don't do something
The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero.
Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am
dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal
accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part.
As a
My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping
centre client: do you want wheelchair access?
The difference in that scenario is that the client would generally not
expect the architect to skip the ramps and lower their fees since
it's only a few people (although I've no
Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible
site and there's every chance that valid, semantic markup could be
just as or even more inaccessible than a site using tables for layout
and inline styles so I do agree and that wasn't the point I was
personally trying to put
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:01 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an
accessible site ...
And
Well, there is also some discussion of liability issues for
architects who design non-ada compliant sites. Check this out:
http://hansonbridgett.com/newsletters/ConstructionAlert/
CAlert080801.html
the last paragraph is key:
While designers are not directly liable under lawsuits for the
And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !?
Guideline, not standard.
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK
T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL
Gary Barber wrote:
Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You
ask do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies,
quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care.
So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and
I've had more success in presenting standards compliance and accessibility
issues as usability issues. Is the site usable for people that are color
blind, wear bifocals, have different navigation preferences, have limited
use of hands, etc? Then it becomes a discussion about which options to
It is, but compliance with the WCAG doesn't automatically guarantee an
accessible site, so my statement stands. To build websites that are truly
accessible it is necessary to understand how people perceive the content and
interact with it. The WCAG are a good start but they only get you so far.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !?
Guideline, not
What you say is true up to a point, but really only applies to trivial
content such as plain text, images and simple forms. I suspect that these
are the sort of sites people have in mind when they say accessibility is
easy and doesn't cost anything.
The complexity and cost of accessible design
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Designer wrote:
Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk.
sigh yes, I'm afraid you're right...
I've been hand-coding since the day I found Pagemill (remember
Pagemill?!?) wouldn't do what I wanted. And there's certainly a
learning curve
Designer wrote:
Andrew Maben wrote:
But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not*
find it quicker and easier (and hence cheaper) to write than tag soup?
Recently, his son got involved and mailed me to say that a friend of
his was doing it for nothing and he could do it
Steve Green wrote:
The complexity and cost of accessible design increase significantly
when the content is more complex, such as very large forms (we have
discussed a few real examples in this list), multimedia and
interactive e-learning (especially when it is discovery-based rather
than
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote:
There's plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for
cheap. Always will be.
If I may add, there are plenty of people all around me that build
crap sites for em$$$/em and I had worked with a few of them -
my insistence on
Tee G. Peng wrote:
I want to build accessible sites because that is the right thing to
do and I have pride in what I do.
Pride may be a costly commodity in more than one way. It sure beats
money as driving-force for real growth though.
Sometimes I do wonder, are some people (including me) in
38 matches
Mail list logo
