Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
I have a chicken - explain how to make it into an egg. On Sun, January 31, 2010 11:46 pm, Andrew Stewart wrote: Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:31, Thierry Koblentz wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage. They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on elements that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input. If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be much better. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Dani Well observed. I am using WordPress presets here. Not had much time 'proving' my accessibility skills on Semantix Blog, however feel free to find such issues on Flexewebs.com. @Peter Mount I am not saying 'Accessibility does not matter!', I was asking a question rather. I don't have an argument to say not providing accessible solution for target audience is ever good. However, you lot may have a great site for a desktop user, but I (not a disabled user) will be looking at it via BlackBerry and it has a kak user experience (poor usability). Verdict: fail (in my view). Accessibility = good, usability = 0. Overall, fail. @Matthew Pennell You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken (right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse (with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed. What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time essentially). So in practice what happens is that (as a practical example) a Large PLC I worked for wanted to enable a 10 minute pension processing time per claim, as opposed to 30-40 minutes per claim. Even able bodied people had a problem meeting this target let alone someone with a broken wrist or who was permanently disable. In practice what happens in commercial environments is that people get assigned to roles which they can fulfil considering the disability they have. You might see this as discrimination, and I do too to a great extent, but it's the reality we live in. I think that legislation in UK also states that if an employee deems the person not to be able to do the job within expected targets, they have the right to refuse him/her work. It's just the way it is. Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.) is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC looks at it is that 'we just won't employ disabled people for this role as they will not be able to meet our targets anyway - we will sign-post them to another role they can do'. Also Matthew can you show me some of the (best) work you have done in the past please? What's your personal website address? You seem to be very quick to judge me and my abilities, but your arguments sound pretty weak as they are not rooted in reality I have observed in the last 10 years working with various PLCs, local and Central Government in UK, number of small sites as well as coding my own web apps in spare time. Thanks, Jason On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Pennell matthewpenn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote: @Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it? Now you've exposed your naivety, I suggest you let the good people of this thread educate you so you can create better work in the future. :) - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! @Matthew Pennell You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken (right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse (with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed. For many people, it is difficult to use the mouse with their other hand. It is even more difficult when a site offers very small clickable areas, pure CSS menus, etc. Things that your intranet users could be facing since you've ignored to implement basic usability/accessibility features. Also, if you can only use one hand, then it is better to keep it on the keyboard rather than switching back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse (you're more productive that way). Anyway, I have another one for you: one of the rep of your company is on the road, he logs to your Intranet to find out that the trackpad on his laptop is busted. What should he do next (beside taking some time off)? What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time essentially). Let's say that the person injured is a guy who does not use a computer all day, but he's a key player and many people rely on the data he keys in every day. Do you still send this guy home? -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Thierry I think keyboard accessibility is relatively easy thing to implement as it tends to follow naturally if one uses even semi-decent semantic HTML. It's not 'expensive' to implement. I would deem every browser based solution a total fail if it didn't have keyboard accessibility supported. However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e. unlikely). Laptop track pad is likely not to be an issue as for example on my current laptop I have two onboard mice (trackpad and nipple), but I use an external mouse. Therefore I have 3 mice altogether. Chances of them all failing are minimal - virtually none. Key players (in my experience) tend to dictate their work to their secretaries and avoid using web tools as much as possible as they tend to know that's not going to keep them ahead of the game (however much we would like to think that 'tweeting is essentially for survival today'). They still prefer verbalising over the phone or such likes for some reason. I can't actually 'see' this example happening. Intranets are usually used within larger organisations. Noone inside larger organisations is irreplaceable in my experience. So your example is simply strange to me in this scenario. Essentially if large organisations were having major issues crop up because of accessibility, they would do everything in their power to implement (extra) accessibility for their intranets and web sites. That's my experience to be honest. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! @Matthew Pennell You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken (right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse (with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed. For many people, it is difficult to use the mouse with their other hand. It is even more difficult when a site offers very small clickable areas, pure CSS menus, etc. Things that your intranet users could be facing since you've ignored to implement basic usability/accessibility features. Also, if you can only use one hand, then it is better to keep it on the keyboard rather than switching back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse (you're more productive that way). Anyway, I have another one for you: one of the rep of your company is on the road, he logs to your Intranet to find out that the trackpad on his laptop is busted. What should he do next (beside taking some time off)? What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time essentially). Let's say that the person injured is a guy who does not use a computer all day, but he's a key player and many people rely on the data he keys in every day. Do you still send this guy home? -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this list do get too close to the accessibility at all cost point of view. Lets take the example of google finance http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud quite a cool site using flash and js to navigate quite a large amount of data (make sure you expand the slider at the bottom of the flash graph to change the time scale and see how the list of news articles on the right changes). How could this site be modified to be meaningfully controlled by using the keyboard alone? I would be very interested to hear people's opinions on the following points: • is this site accessible? and if not, please give real examples of saying how it is hard for people with disabilities to use • how could you make it more accessible without introducing a huge amount of extra work for the developers and without having an adverse effect for non-disabled users? Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do something about it. Andy -- a...@universalsprout.com Andrew Stewart Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113 London :: +44(0)7900 245 789 www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 31/01/2010 22:50, Andrew Stewart wrote: Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do something about it. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't structure your content properly, add necessary hooks, and generally show basic awareness of what the problems are and circumvent them, there is no magical pixie-dust-powered technology in the browser or OS that can accessify your content. And, for the last time, can we drop this whole accessibility = non-JavaScript solution according to WCAG 1 slant? WCAG 2 has been out for over a year now, and that's the yardstick we use. And yes, WCAG 2 allows for scripting, or any other accessibility-supported technologies. But that still means that these technologies need to be used in a responsible and correct way...because that's the power over what the user sees. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
-Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:40 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! @Thierry I think keyboard accessibility is relatively easy thing to implement as it tends to follow naturally if one uses even semi-decent semantic HTML. It's not 'expensive' to implement. I would deem every browser based solution a total fail if it didn't have keyboard accessibility supported. However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e. unlikely). Laptop track pad is likely not to be an issue as for example on my current laptop I have two onboard mice (trackpad and nipple), but I use an external mouse. Therefore I have 3 mice altogether. Chances of them all failing are minimal - virtually none. Key players (in my experience) tend to dictate their work to their secretaries and avoid using web tools as much as possible as they tend to know that's not going to keep them ahead of the game (however much we would like to think that 'tweeting is essentially for survival today'). They still prefer verbalising over the phone or such likes for some reason. I can't actually 'see' this example happening. Intranets are usually used within larger organisations. Noone inside larger organisations is irreplaceable in my experience. So your example is simply strange to me in this scenario. Essentially if large organisations were having major issues crop up because of accessibility, they would do everything in their power to implement (extra) accessibility for their intranets and web sites. That's my experience to be honest. I guess you solve all the problems by: - requiring one secretary per key player in the company - requiring that everybody has at least 2 pointing devices (with spare batteries as well) - requiring that people give a 2 weeks heads up before getting injured (because even if nobody is irreplaceable, transition costs big bucks) Anyway, I think the discussion is getting silly/absurd... -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 31/01/2010 21:05, Jason Grant wrote: Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.) is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC looks at it is that 'we just won't employ disabled people for this role as they will not be able to meet our targets anyway - we will sign-post them to another role they can do'. Which, in the UK, is a very clear-cut case of discrimination. The DDA mandates reasonable adjustments in the workplace, which should normally be taken pre-emptively. The 'we just won't employ disabled people for this role is a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes the whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much better solution than spending hours removing reds/greens etc from your site because it can be adjusted for specific users and will work with every website/application. But to go back to the main concrete point of my email - is google finance accessible? - and if it isn't please explain how. Whilst there are no-javascript and no-flash versions of google finance they are such a poor imitation of the full site, I don't think they really count. Yes they display the same information but not in a usable manner. Andy -- a...@universalsprout.com Andrew Stewart Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113 London :: +44(0)7900 245 789 www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:10, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: On 31/01/2010 22:50, Andrew Stewart wrote: Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do something about it. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't structure your content properly, add necessary hooks, and generally show basic awareness of what the problems are and circumvent them, there is no magical pixie- dust-powered technology in the browser or OS that can accessify your content. And, for the last time, can we drop this whole accessibility = non- JavaScript solution according to WCAG 1 slant? WCAG 2 has been out for over a year now, and that's the yardstick we use. And yes, WCAG 2 allows for scripting, or any other accessibility-supported technologies. But that still means that these technologies need to be used in a responsible and correct way...because that's the power over what the user sees. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this list do get too close to the accessibility at all cost point of view. Lets take the example of google finance http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud quite a cool site using flash and js to navigate quite a large amount of data (make sure you expand the slider at the bottom of the flash graph to change the time scale and see how the list of news articles on the right changes). How could this site be modified to be meaningfully controlled by using the keyboard alone? I would be very interested to hear people's opinions on the following points: . is this site accessible? and if not, please give real examples of saying how it is hard for people with disabilities to use . how could you make it more accessible without introducing a huge amount of extra work for the developers and without having an adverse effect for non-disabled users? Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do something about it. I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage. They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on elements that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input. If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be much better. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:31, Thierry Koblentz wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage. They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on elements that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input. If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be much better. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? The same ease of use?! Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;) Besides that, did you look at the markup? Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 31/01/2010 23:46, Andrew Stewart wrote: Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? Step one: make the flash itself keyboard accessible http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+keyboard+access Kbd users can then tab from one control to the next, and use arrow keys to move sliders left/right. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally inaccessible. I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? The same ease of use?! Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;) Besides that, did you look at the markup? Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
And while we are on the topic of Google, their UX principles are as follows: http://www.google.com/corporate/ux.html Please pay attention to points 6 and 7 carefully. Thanks, Jason On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally inaccessible. I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? The same ease of use?! Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;) Besides that, did you look at the markup? Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 31/01/2010 23:23, Andrew Stewart wrote: My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes the whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much better solution than spending hours removing reds/greens etc from your site because it can be adjusted for specific users and will work with every website/application. So it's really not so much we have hardly any power over what the user sees, but rather I can't be bothered spending any time looking at the few most common colour combinations that can cause problems for users who are colour blind and avoiding those, so let the OS/Browser deal with it. True, the OS/Browser/AT can work around your colour choices, but only if you implement them correctly. E.g. they can override colours you set in your CSS, but not in Flash, or in images. So again, you need to actually be aware how to build things properly. Simply saying that it shouldn't be your responsibility is not a carte blanche for not doing anything at all. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason. Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. And they're also part of the effort for accessibility http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either? I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. It does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable (with keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc). Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and feel that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with actually understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, usable and accessible web development. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Please let this be the final word... A On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason. Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. And they're also part of the effort for accessibility http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either? I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. It does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable (with keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc). Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and feel that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with actually understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, usable and accessible web development. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Patrick You seem to be very 'touched' by these genuine remarks I am making. You should not jump to a (very wrong) conclusion that I don't know much about accessibility. I am very comfortable within the area having worked on making a major e-commerce site fully Web2.0 and AAA accessible and knowing exactly how much work there is to build solutions which are both fully featured JS wise and accessible without JS. I think I have made it clear enough times so far that work-without-JS is not the only accessibility issue I know of (I think that various colour, font, sizing, etc. guidelines even the birds on the trees understand and know by now and they are usually matters which can be dealt with using semantic HTML and a few simple tweaks in CSS). However, work-without-JS **is** a major development overhead when it comes to developing web apps, and my argument (for the Nth time now) is that in majority of the cases work-without-JS is not worth the effort which example of both Google (e.g. Calendar) and Yahoo (e.g. Flickr) exemplifies very well. Both corporations (however) will evangelise at us how we need to make our solutions fully progressively enhanced even theirs aren't. You are not really addressing my points, you are simply always coming back with: 'JS is not the only (accessibility) issue' and 'Jason is ignorant' and so on. Come with something more concrete? A concrete example perhaps? Do you have a web app which you have coded (on your own) which is fully accessible with JS? If so, show us. If not, why not? If not, do you really feel you should be so vocal in talking about this issue since you are more than likely (in that circumstance) to not fully be understanding what I am talking about? I know I may be sounding a bit harsh, but the bottom line is that we need to start getting real about some of these things I reckon. By the way, I am not calling you ignorant or other names, since I don't know you and generally have respect for other web devs, so I think you ought to start using a more intellectual approach for the sake of the list and not making yourself look less clever than you actually are. On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk wrote: On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason. Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. And they're also part of the effort for accessibility http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either? I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. It does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable (with keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc). Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and feel that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with actually understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, usable and accessible web development. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
This discussion has been at times interesting (where there was healthy exchange of info) and worrying (when personal criticisms were used instead of calm discussions). However, it looks like this thread has reached a point where we not gaining anything - just expressing disagreement. So, unfortunately, it is time to move on. THREAD CLOSED Please do not continue this thread Please do not reply to this email or any others in the thread Please go about your business :) Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:24 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' the HTML5 spec. GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally inaccessible. flash can be very accessible (as Patrick pointed out). And forget about JS off, what's important is that it is accessible *with* JS. See Todd Kloots' YUI presentation: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=kloots-yuiconf2009-a11y -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 2010/01/31 22:40 (GMT) Jason Grant composed: @Thierry [...] However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e. unlikely). I don't, but I do think you're doing your best to rationalize compounding the difficulties that result from real-life accidents and disabilities, be they large, small, avoidable, or otherwise. These are not robots or statistics gatherers you're making unnecessary difficulty for, but real people who need to do what they need to do. -- Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, 2nd US President Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about accessibility whether I am right or wrong. I will try and reply directly to remarks made by various individuals: @Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed and maybe live a bit of life in spare minutes. In first instance 'full accessibility' is a must. In second, it might not be. That's my point. Where can I read your masterpieces and thoughts by the way? @Luc Glad we agree. ;-) @Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client wants. @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice to have test environment details). I don't care. Content is visible and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun under my blog. @Mark Harris Plagiarism will get you nowhere. ;-) @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 -- HTML5 is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just a thought. Thanks for replies once again. Back to coding now. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Lesley Lutomski ubu...@webaflame.co.uk wrote: I also agree with this, and I have a problem with someone whose view on accessibility seems to focus on the technologies, not the people using those technologies. I have a modern browser (Firefox 3.5) with full support for Javascript, Flash, etc. I also have disabilities which make it very difficult for me to use some sites which employ those technologies. If you want me, and people like me, to visit your site for more than a few seconds, then I suggest you focus on whether we can access it, not whether our computers can! Lesley Oliver Boermans wrote: On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote: Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you don't have regard for accessibility. Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason so many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectly good selfish reasons why companies ought to consider accessibility. It's about ensuring things just work. Ollie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Good afternoon Jason, It was foretold that on 30/01/2010 @ 16:57:27 GMT+ (which was 14:57:27 where I live) Jason Grant would write: snipped a bit JG @Luc Glad we agree. ;-) Just to make myself clear: i don't agree with your point of view: the quoted text was to illustrate the motive that one should be using accessibility. -- Regards, Luc _ http://www.dzinelabs.com Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.2.6 with Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 3 and using the best browser: Opera. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 30/01/2010 16:57, Jason Grant wrote: @Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed and maybe live a bit of life in spare minutes. In first instance 'full accessibility' is a must. In second, it might not be. That depends on your definition and understanding of full accessibility. Are we talking WCAG 1, WCAG 2, ...? @Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client wants. That's a different argument to what you make in your blog post, which does not mention clients at all - just the argument that in those situations accessibility is irrelevant. There is a difference. @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 -- HTML5 is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just a thought. So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Looking at your comments on the blog, I note we should be able to get away with single A accessibility and a solid mobile solution instead. Accessibility is not a matter of getting away with anything. It's about providing the best solutions for the widest possible audiences. You seem to have a dichotomy of UX vs Accessibility, for some reason. And again you seem to be stuck on the no JavaScript mindset. Is THAT really the crux of your argument? Are you hung up on WCAG 1? Is your blog post simply boiling down to I want to use JavaScript, but WCAG 1 won't let me, but for UX it's great, and I can't be bothered to do a no-JS parallel solution? If so, WCAG 2 of course allows JS, if it's used correctly. So I can finally understand the principles behind WCAG2.0. I get the impression that you still don't, I'm afraid. By saying that accessibility does not matter in certain situations, you're implicitly saying that WCAG 2 doesn't matter. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:22 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 -- HTML5 is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just a thought. So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. ... @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice to have test environment details). The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and that *is* a matter of accessibility. I don't care. Content is visible and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun under my blog. Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is to *let* it work everywhere. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Chris F. A. Johnson Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. @Patrick H. Lauke 'Full accessibility' to me means a fully functional site with JS switched off, with all visual goodies in place of course (contrast, flexible font size and so on) according to WCAG1.0, to which we have so far been working. When web apps context comes in, meeting these WCAG1.0 becomes a massive burden and extra work. Clients issue - I am usually not developing for Santa Clause. Clients essentially rule the game and set the constraints which I need to meet. I am not going to invent constraints or drop anything that client requires. If they tell me 'code for IE6 only' I will tell them 'but IE8 is already in use and IE9 is round the corner, so IE6 is way beyond it's use by date, so I would not recommend what you suggest under any circumstances' and they tell me that I should not worry, I am not going to be an idiot enough to be pushing my issue as it tends to simply piss people off and make me look bad in the eyes of everyone. JS issue. When writing this article for most part I *was* thinking about JS vs. no-JS matters. To implement a proper progressively enhanced solution for a complex web app it really does take lots of thinking and additional (possibly complex) JS/AJAX code for it to work. I haven't got that time to do it with the app I am currently developing. Coincidentally can someone send me a complex-ish web app using JS that has been 'properly developed' with regards to accessibility? Anything in the wild will do. Yahoo used to taut Flickr as one, but it isn't. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.com wrote: On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. ... @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice to have test environment details). The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and that *is* a matter of accessibility. I don't care. Content is visible and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun under my blog. Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is to *let* it work everywhere. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Chris I couldn't resist this Sir. Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/ Uses two tables on the front page. The first should be a dl and both are missing thead section. Poor accessibility. It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an h1, but at the very top you have h1aimg construct going on. HHmmm. Anyway. Back to my shell script. ;-) On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote: @Chris F. A. Johnson Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. @Patrick H. Lauke 'Full accessibility' to me means a fully functional site with JS switched off, with all visual goodies in place of course (contrast, flexible font size and so on) according to WCAG1.0, to which we have so far been working. When web apps context comes in, meeting these WCAG1.0 becomes a massive burden and extra work. Clients issue - I am usually not developing for Santa Clause. Clients essentially rule the game and set the constraints which I need to meet. I am not going to invent constraints or drop anything that client requires. If they tell me 'code for IE6 only' I will tell them 'but IE8 is already in use and IE9 is round the corner, so IE6 is way beyond it's use by date, so I would not recommend what you suggest under any circumstances' and they tell me that I should not worry, I am not going to be an idiot enough to be pushing my issue as it tends to simply piss people off and make me look bad in the eyes of everyone. JS issue. When writing this article for most part I *was* thinking about JS vs. no-JS matters. To implement a proper progressively enhanced solution for a complex web app it really does take lots of thinking and additional (possibly complex) JS/AJAX code for it to work. I haven't got that time to do it with the app I am currently developing. Coincidentally can someone send me a complex-ish web app using JS that has been 'properly developed' with regards to accessibility? Anything in the wild will do. Yahoo used to taut Flickr as one, but it isn't. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.com wrote: On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. ... @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice to have test environment details). The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and that *is* a matter of accessibility. I don't care. Content is visible and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun under my blog. Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is to *let* it work everywhere. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: @Chris I couldn't resist this Sir. Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/ Uses two tables on the front page. The first should be a dl and both are missing thead section. Poor accessibility. I agree. That's a very old page that I haven't yet got around to fixing up. It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an h1, but at the very top you have h1aimg construct going on. There's nothing wrong with unusual. HHmmm. Anyway. Back to my shell script. ;-) -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: @Chris F. A. Johnson Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still accessible with larger font size. But even that is unnecessary; there's no good reason not to have it look good for everyone. How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts. Don't use fixed-width layouts. http://cfaj/cfajohnson.com/webdesign/fixed-width/ I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users. What, pray tell, looks like rubbish? What doesn't work for 99% of viewers? Also with CSS switched off the site's content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size. One would certainly hope so! Now take it that tiny step further and make it work for everyone no matter what their default font size. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! - ADMIN
ADMIN This discussion is quickly deteriorating into name calling, finger pointing, etc. Please return to the discussion, and be respectful of each other - regardless of your differences of opinion. Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Jason, I would not feel comfortable working for a client with such disregard for accessibility. To extend your argument if the client asks me to break the law does that make it OK? There is a real business need to have even intranet systems that are accessible. As for your assertion in the following line: If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about accessibility whether I am right or wrong. I think there is a difference between sparking healthy debate and being a troll. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 31/01/2010, at 3:57 AM, Jason Grant wrote: @Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client wants. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the other (because of a broken wrist for example). otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can. It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a semi-meaningful way. This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used to access the app I am currently working on). From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest level of usability through devices they are using. That way we increase profit and ROI. Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.). My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even. Hope this makes sense. So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached from a clever, business angle. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the other (because of a broken wrist for example). otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!. If you're going to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world examples to back up your claim. Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That is the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an app can achieve greater usability by using features which in turn deny access to those users who can't use those features. How does this increased usability benefit those people who can't use it? -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can. It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a semi-meaningful way. This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used to access the app I am currently working on). From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest level of usability through devices they are using. That way we increase profit and ROI. Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.). My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even. Hope this makes sense. So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached from a clever, business angle. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the other (because of a broken wrist for example). otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
@Peter Title of my article is 'Accessibility does not matter?' (the question mark is very intentional there). To address your second point I will go back to the app I am currently developing. It needs a lot of JavaScript to improve usability of the tool and a progressively enhanced solution would be so far from the JavaScript solution that in reality they are like 2 different implementations of the tool. Considering this tool has already taken me 10 solid days of coding (in my spare time) without following the full progressive enhancement route and I have another 20 days solid left in order to finish the Alpha version, while I cannot envisage this tool being used by a person with a non-JS support browser. Why should I spend time coding a progressively enhanced solution for this when I don't see this tool ever being used by a disabled person of any sort? Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind person would not enjoy using this at all I would say). On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote: Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!. If you're going to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world examples to back up your claim. Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That is the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an app can achieve greater usability by using features which in turn deny access to those users who can't use those features. How does this increased usability benefit those people who can't use it? -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can. It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a semi-meaningful way. This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used to access the app I am currently working on). From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest level of usability through devices they are using. That way we increase profit and ROI. Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.). My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even. Hope this makes sense. So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached from a clever, business angle. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets hired, then redo it all? Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow. @Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the other (because of a broken wrist for example). otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Jason, I can not accept that underline text on your post is not a clickable link. Your W3C and WCAG words did not have its abbreviation. And the option at the bottom of submit button is not in a logical order, I think. :) -- Regards, Dani Iswara http://daniiswara.net/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
So lack of time is an excuse we can use for not using accessibility from the start? How convenient we can use that excuse for not helping potential users. Besides, every email in this thread has the title Accessibility does not matter! with the !. Interesting you can't envisage anybody needing accessibility in your target audience. What methodology did you user to determine that? Did you allow for any variables on that in the future or are you assuming nobody is going to get injured or sick or even need to start wearing eye glasses? With the following paragraph: Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind person would not enjoy using this at all I would say). What are you saying? It seems like you are sitting on the fence in your argument. If you're going to say Accessibility does not matter!, with the !, I'd like some more solid evidence to back up your statement. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 31/01/2010, at 1:07 PM, Jason Grant wrote: @Peter Title of my article is 'Accessibility does not matter?' (the question mark is very intentional there). To address your second point I will go back to the app I am currently developing. It needs a lot of JavaScript to improve usability of the tool and a progressively enhanced solution would be so far from the JavaScript solution that in reality they are like 2 different implementations of the tool. Considering this tool has already taken me 10 solid days of coding (in my spare time) without following the full progressive enhancement route and I have another 20 days solid left in order to finish the Alpha version, while I cannot envisage this tool being used by a person with a non-JS support browser. Why should I spend time coding a progressively enhanced solution for this when I don't see this tool ever being used by a disabled person of any sort? Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind person would not enjoy using this at all I would say). On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote: Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!. If you're going to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world examples to back up your claim. Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That is the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an app can achieve greater usability by using features which in turn deny access to those users who can't use those features. How does this increased usability benefit those people who can't use it? -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can. It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a semi-meaningful way. This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used to access the app I am currently working on). From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest level of usability through devices they are using. That way we increase profit and ROI. Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.). My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even. Hope this makes sense. So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached from a clever, business angle. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Grant Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :) Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the West, all those corporates that make software, have a big influence and dominated the market (Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from the West. Western mindset is all about freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, but empathy is quick lacking the way I see it. Green business has a term, greenwashing, perhaps we should have a term for accessibilty-washing, that is, 1% of equality minus 99% of empathy, I often think that this is the reason why web accessibility is slow crawling, because there isn't profit in making accessible software, web application, websites , etc. And it's that empathy that one has that makes one willing to run extra miles to make an accessible website, but one's effort is limited, on this notion, I can understand some of Jason's argument, though I don't agree with him. Some culture in the East has the notion of empathy but lack of freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, and they have to learn the Web-standards and accessibility knowledge using English and learn from the West. I am pretty certain Tim Berners-Lee on The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect includes 99% of empathy. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
I whole heartily agree with you Tee, and more importantly with Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet as a whole was invited for the people to share information, and how can information be shared if accessibility is limited, even on intranet's if the system is built from the beginning to be widely accessible. When I first started learning about writing code for Standards Compliancy, and made sure I followed the outlines, I soon found myself writing in that manner automatically, it's just a matter of learning. And in this day and age, what decent developer builds software for web or otherwise does it without learning new techniques. If those developer's are not willing to adapt to the needs of consumers, they should steps aside, and take up another profession. Sorry, but I get beaten out of jobs myself due to these amateurs, only to have those client's come back to me, stating they went somewhere else 'cos it was cheaper, and they haven't been given the accessibility or editable options I discussed with them. Also, to the person in the previous comments (don't remember who it was, I do this via email), that stated something about when jQuery is no longer supported in Browser's. You need to do a little homework before making such claims. jQuery is a JavaScript framework, hence it's JavaScript, which is support in almost every Browser, and JavaScript won't be getting dropped from Browser's for a very long time, and in fact it's been around before it was implemented and support in Browser's. Being Netscape in fact. If anything should or would get dropped, it should be these bulky have to install into the user's OS third party add-ons, such as Flash, Silverlight, and so on. On a personal note Tee, you seem to be of the mind of following or have heard of Esoteric Agenda? tee wrote: Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :) Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the West, all those corporates that make software, have a big influence and dominated the market (Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from the West. Western mindset is all about freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, but empathy is quick lacking the way I see it. Green business has a term, greenwashing, perhaps we should have a term for accessibilty-washing, that is, 1% of equality minus 99% of empathy, I often think that this is the reason why web accessibility is slow crawling, because there isn't profit in making accessible software, web application, websites , etc. And it's that empathy that one has that makes one willing to run extra miles to make an accessible website, but one's effort is limited, on this notion, I can understand some of Jason's argument, though I don't agree with him. Some culture in the East has the notion of empathy but lack of freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, and they have to learn the Web-standards and accessibility knowledge using English and learn from the West. I am pretty certain Tim Berners-Lee on The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect includes 99% of empathy. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote: @Thierry I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it? Now you've exposed your naivety, I suggest you let the good people of this thread educate you so you can create better work in the future. :) - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Hello friends, I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Thank you very much. Regards, Jason -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Not a bad read. I'm about halfway in between your view and accessibility all the time. I do agree that there is a lot of accessibility for the sake of accessibility, however, there are also lots of things that are so easy to do that they should always be done, even if your target market doesn't explicitly need that. Thanks for the interesting read. - Christian On 1/29/2010 9:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: Hello friends, I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Thank you very much. Regards, Jason -- Christian Snodgrass CEO - Azure Ronin http://www.arwebdesign.net http://www.htmlblox.com Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 29/01/2010 14:09, Jason Grant wrote: I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion, your argumentation is confused, ill informed, and misguided. More detail in my comment. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly written that you've given critical readers little to work with. You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad, deep, and empathetic thinking. When accessibility matters ... * A company cares about their users You could have stopped right there. Glumly, Paul *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Also posted on your blog: When accessibility matters: There are clear circumstances within which accessibility is incredibly relevant and should be implemented by all means possible. A company cares about their users, wanting to ensure a wide as possible accessibility in order to avoid customer complaints, negative feedback and generally increase their changes of higher profits by ensuring everyone can buy goods from their web site without problems Enough said i think :-) -- Regards, Luc _ Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.2.6 with Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 3 and using the best browser: Opera. You are richer today if you have laughed, given or forgiven. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
After reading the article myself I agree Jason is wrong. Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you don't have regard for accessibility. I haven't been posting to this list very much lately but I just had to say something about this. Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 30/01/2010, at 9:46 AM, Paul Novitski p...@juniperwebcraft.com wrote: At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly written that you've given critical readers little to work with. You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad, deep, and empathetic thinking. When accessibility matters ... * A company cares about their users You could have stopped right there. Glumly, Paul *** List Guidelines:http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Nor, apparently, does a page which works: http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/flexewebs.jpg. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote: Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you don't have regard for accessibility. Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason so many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectly good selfish reasons why companies ought to consider accessibility. It's about ensuring things just work. Ollie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***