Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
Stephen Stagg wrote: I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way BUT by having a text alternative. I totally agree with you (though Flash can be made accessible... kinda). But if I could play devil's advocate a minute, it CAN be made accessible by not using Flash. If the law says that the text-only version can only be provided, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way, some could certainly argue that compliance could be accomplished by simply ditching the Flash and going with HTML to begin with. This certainly isn't the approach I would take, but other 'elitists' are. Jared ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to make it accessible for screen readers. They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible. kind regards Terrence Wood. Felicity Farr said: Read the article: http://www.lightmaker.com/company/index.cfm?section=latest_newspress_id =26 Does anyone else have a problem with these guys saying that http://www.jkrowling.com/ is accessible? It fails Priority 1 It fails html validation And unless I have Javascript enabled I can't even access the 'accessibility enabled version' I can only access a text version (disgusting!). http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ http://www.jkrowling.com/accessible/en/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's instantly accessible. It's a great message. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:25 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to make it accessible for screen readers. They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible. kind regards Terrence Wood. Felicity Farr said: Read the article: http://www.lightmaker.com/company/index.cfm?section=latest_newspress_id =26 Does anyone else have a problem with these guys saying that http://www.jkrowling.com/ is accessible? It fails Priority 1 It fails html validation And unless I have Javascript enabled I can't even access the 'accessibility enabled version' I can only access a text version (disgusting!). http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ http://www.jkrowling.com/accessible/en/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
The fact that the text-only version fails basic checkpoints is very disappointing however. I don't know about the rest of you but I certaily let them know my feelings via email. Strength in numbers and all that. There's been a lot of MM propaganda around of late with regards to high-profile sites. Reading between the lines, which isn't that hard in this case, simply tells me that MM are desperate to show that Flash CAN be accessible...if you have enough money, time and desire to bother. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felicity Farr Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:33 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's instantly accessible. It's a great message. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:25 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to make it accessible for screen readers. They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible. kind regards Terrence Wood. Felicity Farr said: Read the article: http://www.lightmaker.com/company/index.cfm?section=latest_newspress_id =26 Does anyone else have a problem with these guys saying that http://www.jkrowling.com/ is accessible? It fails Priority 1 It fails html validation And unless I have Javascript enabled I can't even access the 'accessibility enabled version' I can only access a text version (disgusting!). http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ http://www.jkrowling.com/accessible/en/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
Felicity Farr wrote: I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's instantly accessible. ...and a direct violation of US Section 508: A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, *when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way*. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like using a text-only page as an excuse for otherwise inaccessible content is a violation. Jared ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
Jared Smith wrote: Felicity Farr wrote: I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's instantly accessible. ...and a direct violation of US Section 508: A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, *when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way*. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like using a text-only page as an excuse for otherwise inaccessible content is a violation. Jared ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way BUT by having a text alternative. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
On 12/14/05, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK the flash portion of this site was developed with the help of MM to make it accessible for screen readers. They *do* offer a text-only version so yes, they can claim to be accessible. Let's put this into perspective: - Macromedia really wants to convince people that flash is accessible, and keep the number of 100% flash sites up. - Macromedia helps Lightmaker build an accessible website, without any regard for the real rules of accessibility, with their usual we'll do it our way attitude. - Macromedia gives the website an award. A very fair process, indeed! MM really could have succeeded with this one, if they had just followed the rules. The fact that the text only page does not validate is one of those things where we have to say, sorry, nice try but you missed a spot. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] JK Rowlings and Accessibility
Stephen Stagg wrote: Jared Smith wrote: Felicity Farr wrote: I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and it's instantly accessible. ... I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like using a text-only page as an excuse for otherwise inaccessible content is a violation. I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way BUT by having a text alternative. It's necessary to have alternative content, but there is no reason for the alternative content to be nothing more than plain text. Good alternative content to flash would include relevant images, videos, audio, etc. Each of those should then also have appropriate alternate content. It should be built to look something like this diagram: __Flash__ / | | \ _Video_ TextAudio Images / \ |(PNG, GIF, SVG, etc.) / \ | | Images Text TextText | (captions/subtitles) (transcript) | Text -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
