[WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221. Cheers. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
nice job! has the feel of web 2.0. dwain On 3/11/08, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221. Cheers. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Nice work Mike, I quite like the way you've used hr/ to separate the content for non-css and used display:none in the other case, it chunks the content quite well. I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as well. Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? Cheers, Matt On 3/12/08, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nice job! has the feel of web 2.0. dwain Web 2.0? Am I looking at the wrong site (http://lflegal.com/)? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Matt wrote: I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as well. Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? I'm not Mike, but I'll observe that access keys are not universally admired. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
On 11 Mar 2008, at 22:38, Matt Fellows wrote: I also like the way you have not gone with the basic skip to content link and gone with a quick skip to menu, I have been advocating a similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as well. Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? Matt; I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. I don't know whether that is the general consensus or not, nor can I say whether that was Mike's reason for not using acesskey, but it makes sense to me. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Rick Lecoat wrote: I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. thats my understanding too. Firstly, you have to communicate to the user what the access keys are for which there are no clear guidelines I know of, and secondly, whats to say your choice of keys doesn't conflict with existing ones the user has set? The only way i see access keys becoming useful is if user agent vendors agree on and implement some kind of name-spacing scheme for author defined keys to prevent conflicts -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Fellows Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile access etc. User defined Access Keys may be a solution: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Interesting. Thanks Thierry! On 3/12/08, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Fellows Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile access etc. User defined Access Keys may be a solution: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
