RE: [WSG] standards, accessability and validation?
thanks for all the brillant feedback! I will try putting a page or two through a screen reader for them. Also I will show them how much easier it is to do a redesign with a standards based website as they do this quite a bit. On top of that a lot of thier contracts specify accesibility as a requirement so it is possible that a client could take legal action at some stage. -best kvnmcwebn ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
We have moved a lot into .net stuff while still keeping it css layout, and although yes it did take time, our programmer now does this as normal practice. So it is possible!! It does take more time and effort for the programmer. You just have to make sure that they don't use the pre-built .net modules because visual basic puts in tables and junk around it all. The other thing to be aware of is that sometimes they will need to use visual basic's id values which sometimes forces you to use classes even where id's would be more appropriate. However our process usually works where I design and build the front-end code, then the programmer integrates this code into the .net stuff, so I might have more control over the xhtml + css than you might? Perhaps it would be worth trying to get the rights to build the front-end code too? The way the css layouts look in visual basic is much like the design view of dreamweaver - not hot and so you can't use it as an indication of what it will look like in the browser. Yes some stuff does generate tables, such as the pre-built modules (which they can change, but usually don't...) and database generated content. However now our programmer understands standards stuff I haven't had a problem with tables turning up where they shouldn't be or anything. Sometimes the data tables that it does generate are extraneous - empty cells and such. Best of luck!! It will likely be something that will develop over time while the programmers understand the importance and get used to working with standard and accessible code. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2005 9:00 a.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] standards, accessability and validation? props to everyone who provided feedback on this post earlier. (regarding designing accessible sites for non standards savy programmers to mark up) I spoke with programmers today. They were more receptive than i'd expected. They agreed give standards a go by easing into css based design one step at a time. I think out of all the great advice i got just being humble and not making them feel inferior was the most important. The conversation would have been a lot shorter if i had tried to preach. Also the accesibilty points/screen reader argument were huge. The big concern is how non-table layouts will show up in visual studio during database/form development...also that some of the dynamic content generation creates tables. Anyway were off to a good start. -best kvnmcwebn ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
I spoke with programmers today. They were more receptive than i'd expected. They agreed give standards a go by easing into css based design one step at a time. Tell those programmers we are ready for their questions. :-) -- -- C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.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] standards, accessability and validation?
It does take more time and effort for the programmer. Even after the learning process is completed? big help-thanks kvnmcwebn ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
On 01/11/05, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I told them that they need to start with web standards and get thier pages to validate before they start on accessability. Was that sound advice? Well, while validation might not be seen as technically essential to accessibility, I'd say that this is still sound advice. Reason being, although when they say accessibility they are probably thinking of screen readers and users who can't use a mouse, accessibility also includes being able to access the information and basic functionality of a site in numerous browsing devices. Validation won't always get you that without a hitch, but it certainly puts you a long way towards that goal. Besides, since I'm assuming you'll be developing with standards in mind, it may as well be going into something that's standard. :) Not sure if any of that made any sense. It's been a long day. Cheers, Seona. ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
On 11/1/05, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hello all, Ive started designing sites for this company that specilizes in .net databases driven/xml feed type sites. I just give them a graphics file and they slice it up. Anyway they asked me yesterday if i could do this particular job with web accessability in mind. But heres the thing-when they mark up my designs and ad the vb .net code a typical page will be running validation errors in the hundreds. I told them that they need to start with web standards and get thier pages to validate before they start on accessability. Was that sound advice? I'd say it depends on what they're already doing. The fact they ask this means they're aware there is an issue, so how ingrained in their development process is consideration for accessibility? If the validation errors in the hundreds are just unencoded ampersands or odd tag that doesn't self-close (such as br / or img /, etc.), then who cares if their stuff validates? (Apologies to anyone offended by such a laissez faire approach!) Accessibility and validation are often paired, but that seems to be more of an incidental thing (because those who care enough to follow specs are also more likely to take an interest in best practices, including what we term accessibility). Also, if you're in a design role, was there an element of can you make your designs USABLE in their request? Without falling too much into a discussion of the division between that and accessibility, that's a fairly valid concern for them to voice. I'd say you're right if their validation errors are non-trivial, but, as John Allsopp's recent survey [ http://westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/best_practices/ ] of practices in large Australian sites demonstrated (amongst other things), otherwise respectable sites can fall down on little things such as that... and claiming validation is prerequisite to accessibility CAN (not neccessarily) be potentially unhelpful. Josh ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Thanks seona and josh, .although when they say accessibility they are probably thinking of screen readers and users who can't use a mouse, accessibility also includes being able to access the information and basic functionality of a site in numerous browsing devices. yes thats the case Besides, since I'm assuming you'll be developing with standards in mind, it may as well be going into something that's standard. :) -thats a key point, i design with standards in mind but they've been slicing my ai files into a tables and calling it a day. I am meeting with them this week to talk about this. I will try and talk the programmers into transitioning to standards but i dont know if i will be able to sell them on it. I was going to try the angle that web standards are helpful/essential for accessability-which they get alot of requests for these days. The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. thanks ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
On 01/11/05, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks seona and josh, You're welcome. :) -thats a key point, i design with standards in mind but they've been slicing my ai files into a tables and calling it a day. I am meeting with them this week to talk about this. I will try and talk the programmers into transitioning to standards but i dont know if i will be able to sell them on it. I was going to try the angle that web standards are helpful/essential for accessability-which they get alot of requests for these days. The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. Understandable on their part. I guess the big thing here is to try and sell it to them in such a way as it doesn't seem like you're saying You guys are doing a bad job and I could do it so much better because I know more than you do. That's immediately going to put them on the defensive, as most people get rather touchy if they think you might be trying to do them out of a job. I know that there were some really good articles floating around on the list a while back when someone was asking how to sell web standards to clients. Maybe you could find something in the archives of the list? If you can present some good solid arguments in favour of it and back them up with some research, it might help a bit. Best of luck! Cheers, Seona. ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Seona Bellamy I know that there were some really good articles floating around on the list a while back when someone was asking how to sell web standards to clients. MACCAWS is fairly nice http://www.maccaws.org/kit/ Just to give my GBP0.02 on the issue, I usually (unless clients specifically enquire) just say that I follow current best practices in terms of web standards and accessibility P __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Having a validating vs non-validating site doesn't make much of a difference in accessibility, as long as the errors are minor. What -does- make a huge difference is semantic vs non-semantic. Having a list marked up as a list but missing a /li (in a DTD that requires it) it still much much more accessible than a list marked up as a two-column table with a ton on font tags. I've seen plenty of perfectly validating XHTML websites that completely ignore semantics, and in my opinion they're wasting their time. ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Having been in your position for some time until recently (I was standards manager for Telstra), I found that the best way to achieve change toward accessibility was to meet with the stakeholders and either take a transcript, or play directly a Jaws readout of a page that had been sliced and diced into tables, especially if non-semantic markup is also incorporated. Their reaction is often one of horror when they realize how incomprehensible their page becomes. If they need further convincing, just ask them how to find one or two of the most visually obvious items within the Jaws rendition. Cheers Graham Cook www.uaoz.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] standards, accessability and validation?
The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. Don't just step, STOMP! If they're not going to do their job right then let it be known there is someone who can...and provide the reasons why. At the end of the day, if it can save time and money, then any decent manager will go for it. ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
well if they don't have an understanding of coding to standards, it appears that a couple of their toes are actually missing. In which case, you certainly won't be standing on them. -Original Message- From: Paul Noone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:10 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] standards, accessability and validation? The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. Don't just step, STOMP! If they're not going to do their job right then let it be known there is someone who can...and provide the reasons why. At the end of the day, if it can save time and money, then any decent manager will go for it. ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Graham Cook wrote: Having been in your position for some time until recently (I was standards manager for Telstra), I found that the best way to achieve change toward accessibility was to meet with the stakeholders and either take a transcript, or play directly a Jaws readout of a page that had been sliced and diced into tables, especially if non-semantic markup is also incorporated. Their reaction is often one of horror when they realize how incomprehensible their page becomes. If they need further convincing, just ask them how to find one or two of the most visually obvious items within the Jaws rendition. At a WSG meeting in Wellington, earlier in the year (see http://www.gooduse.co.nz/thegoodnessarchives/000113.html), Jonathon Mosen did a live demo of JAWS to an audience of web developers. Watching the light bulbs go on as it read out an interminable database URL from an Amazon.com link was almost funny - you could see the ones who were thinking but *we* produce databases like that! IMHO semantic mark-up is a big chunk of accessibility but it is only part of the battle. A carefully planned information architecture is equally important - it needs to allow concise, persistent navigation, even for transient information. As others have said, accessibility isn't just about blind people. An associate, legally blind but still able to see somewhat, uses IE as her browser, without assistive technology. She needs high contrast text and easily identified links. A text-based alternative won't cut it for her. At a seminar last year, someone raised the point of dyslexics, who have as much trouble with text-based alternatives as they do with the original text-heavy page. I still haven't got my head around a solution for that. People with poor mobility, people with reduced cognitive capability, colour-blind people - accessibility is about all these. And then there's the technologically challenged - those who don't live near a major city and are doomed to dial-up, and degraded dial-up at that. Oz is like NZ in that the telephone lines in rural areas have to traverse a lot of electric fences and that causes problems for the signal. I don't know if this can all be solved simply by guerilla mark-up - I rather believe that it has to start in base design of content, and that goes back to the productivity templates, not usually within the web-geek's purview. And that means corporate change. By all means, code to standards without direct instruction - as a professional, you should do the best job you can, not the minimum the client requires. And the consensus around here is that standards-based design is the best way, else why are we reading this? But also work to increase corporate understanding of the business advantages around standards-based design - refer them to NUblog's [*] excellent summary of the 2000 SOCOG complaint (http://www.contenu.nu/socog.html) or or point them at Joe Clark's page (http://www.joeclark.org/accessiblog/ab-lawsuits.html [**]) of suit references as examples. The accessibility lawsuit is coming to a court near you in the future. Convince your manager not to be a test case. Cheers Mark Harris [*] also one of Jo Clark's, I notice [**] although I'm a little concerned about the goatse-like cover of his book... ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Mark Harris wrote: At a WSG meeting in Wellington, earlier in the year (see http://www.gooduse.co.nz/thegoodnessarchives/000113.html), Jonathon Mosen did a live demo of JAWS to an audience of web developers. Watching the light bulbs go on as it read out an interminable database URL from an Amazon.com link was almost funny - you could see the ones who were thinking but *we* produce databases like that! We are hoping to have this available online as a Quicktime file soon. When it is, it's definitely worth showing to people. Jonathan is a wonderful speaker and funny speaker, and I guarantee that no one will see his presentation and go away feeling the same about accessibility! Mike for Web Standards New Zealand / Wellington WSG ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
We are hoping to have this available online as a Quicktime file soon. When it is, it's definitely worth showing to people. Jonathan is a wonderful speaker and funny speaker, and I guarantee that no one will see his presentation and go away feeling the same about accessibility! Mike for Web Standards New Zealand / Wellington WSG ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Um, I'm kind of afraid to ask, but would there be any captioning on that for us poor deaf folk who won't hear this but do work for hearing clients? Leslie ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Leslie Riggs wrote: Um, I'm kind of afraid to ask, but would there be any captioning on that for us poor deaf folk who won't hear this but do work for hearing clients? Hmmm...should I fire up my SMIL-a-tron again? (which has been busy recently...watch out for an announcement soon...) -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Leslie Riggs wrote: We are hoping to have this available online as a Quicktime file soon. When it is, it's definitely worth showing to people. Jonathan is a wonderful speaker and funny speaker, and I guarantee that no one will see his presentation and go away feeling the same about accessibility! Um, I'm kind of afraid to ask, but would there be any captioning on that for us poor deaf folk who won't hear this but do work for hearing clients? There's not at the moment. It would be great to have some, but I haven't any experience in captioning and not sure what's involved or how long it might take. Any volunteers? :) Mike ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
Quoting Mike Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There's not at the moment. It would be great to have some, but I haven't any experience in captioning and not sure what's involved or how long it might take. Any volunteers? :) Sadly I am about to leave the Australian Caption Centre but I would be more than happy to liaise with Leslie and Mike on the issue of captioning events such as these. Regards Tim Smith Please respond to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
i dont know if i will be able to sell them on it. I was going to try the angle that web standards are helpful/essential for accessability-which they get alot of requests for these days. The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. If they actually care about accessibility, that'll be a good angle. Just make sure they don't turn it into you're making more work for us. Also be careful not to let them mistake validates for is totally accessible since they are related, but not the same. I'd also talk about how going to standards will make future redevelopment much easier. If they're worried about you stepping on their toes, they're missing the point about separation of code and interface. If they've seen the CSS Zen Garden they probably don't think it has any practical applications... put the idea in their head that the swap could be from a client's old look and feel to their new corporate identity. That and clean XHTML is easier to hand-code than tables, which coders tend to like :) Hope that helps. cheers, Ben Buchanan -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
That and clean XHTML is easier to hand-code than tables... Without wanting to open a can of worms here; how so? Do you mean in conjunction with CSS, or just that XHTML markup is cleaner than that of HTML? ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
hello all, Ive started designing sites for this company that specilizes in .net databases driven/xml feed type sites. I just give them a graphics file and they slice it up. Anyway they asked me yesterday if i could do this particular job with web accessability in mind. But heres the thing-when they mark up my designs and ad the vb .net code a typical page will be running validation errors in the hundreds. I told them that they need to start with web standards and get thier pages to validate before they start on accessability. Was that sound advice? The process of graphics mockup - slicing - table layout is the problem. That process has nothing to do with the content or the document flow. Document flow is the big deal with accessibility; if they want to make accessible websites, you need to tell them that the tables have to go, HTML or XHTML. Show them what semantics are, talk about doing graphics as background, using divs, text/image replacement techniques, navigating with a keyboard, etc. Most importantly, and this is a long term approach, I think your place in the design process needs to change... the layout / content etc should come before the graphics. With CSS and semantic code you can build the layout first and then add all the graphics in. It sounds like right now your graphics drive the layout and then the content is just dropped in, and to be really semantic it's probably better to work the other way around. -- -- C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.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] standards, accessability and validation?
Paul Noone wrote: That and clean XHTML is easier to hand-code than tables... Without wanting to open a can of worms here; how so? Do you mean in conjunction with CSS, or just that XHTML markup is cleaner than that of HTML? I read him to mean that any clean mark-up is easier to hand code than tables and I'd agree mark haha - freudian slip - I mis-typed mark-up as murk-up! I think I'll trademark that one... ** 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] standards, accessability and validation?
That and clean XHTML is easier to hand-code than tables... Without wanting to open a can of worms here; how so? Do you mean in conjunction with CSS, or just that XHTML markup is cleaner than that of HTML? Just that XHTML markup is faster to type by hand than nested tables and font tags. Most coders I know/work with code by hand, so less typing is definitely better :) cheers, Ben Buchanan -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
