You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos...
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979&lon=-0.226138&z=17.8&r=0&src=msl It is easily "iframed" Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright > Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' > > Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, > obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is > off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via > the keyboard. > > With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some > require you to have the map in focus. > > Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be > used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - > http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:'' > ????????????" > Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' > > Jason & Stephen, > > when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: > Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps > > I wonder is the code IE7 specific? > none of the keys work for me on os x > > unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... > > regards > > Jonathan Chetwynd > > > > On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: > > Disable javascript. Everything works fine. > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:'' ????????????" > Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' > > Richard, > > how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? > > cheers > > Jonathan Chetwynd > > > > On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: > > This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than > accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often > closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - > Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is > about any actual problems > - in this case he's got a point. "Web 2.0" sites are often > completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and > Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to > post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. > > Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of > excellent intuitive design and useability. > > Just as the phrase "Web 2.0" means different things to all > people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes > the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who > hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar > all "Web 2.0" sites with the same brush. > > Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what > Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, > the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. > > Cheers, > > Rich. > > On 5/15/07, "~:'' ????????????" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason & Gordon > > > > any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? > > or are you in a rush? > > > > cheers > > > > Jonathan Chetwynd > > > > > > > > On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: > > > > This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. > > > > Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court > > controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. > > > > "Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice > > methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of > > this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting > users as co- > > developers" [2]. > > These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design. > > > > As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the > > technology's fault that this happens, it's the > designer/developer that > > fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when > you're goading > > mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? > > > > J > > > > [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means > > different things to different people. > > [2] Tim O'Reilly > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ?:'' > > ???????????? > > Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 > > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > > Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' > > > > Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm > > > > seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ?:" > > > > has he been invited? > > > > was I? > > > > did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an > accessible SVG front > > end? > > > > cheers > > > > Jonathan Chetwynd > > Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet > > > > http://www.eas-i.co.uk > > > > > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > > Unofficial list archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > > mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > > mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > > -- > SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 > > Registered address: > 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/805 - Release > Date: 15/05/2007 10:47 > > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/805 - Release Date: 15/05/2007 10:47 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
