Not at all. You know that the site only has 15 pages but your visitors
don't. The sitemap gives the visitor an immediate indication of the size of
the site, so why deny them that? It can be a big help in determining their
strategy for browsing the site.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [
The accessibility issues relating to frames are often overstated, although
they can cause difficulties with user agents that only support one window,
such as Lynx. You can usually still use the site but it is not as convenient
because you have to keep going back to the list of frames in order to ac
they are the minority".
Every user counts.
If a user wants to magnify the screen there are alternative methods for
making link text bigger, there is no alternative method for a user to make
sense of link text.
James
On Nov 18, 2007 5:44 PM, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
People with assistive technologies rarely benefit from 'title' attributes.
They are not displayed by text browsers, they are not accessible using
keyboard navigation (or devices that emulate keyboards) and they are not
read by screen readers with default settings. They are only accessible to
someon
There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to tab through the links in
Firefox. Links are not on the tab sequence in Safari by default, but you can
turn that on in the Preferences. I have no idea if users actually do in
practice.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailt
"Most disabled users, particularly sight impaired, will use your header
markup to navigate the page rather than skip links"
Really? How will they do that? And what makes you believe that this is the
case?
"...an accessible browser like Firefox which allows them to display a header
list..."
No it
visibility: hidden does hide the content from screen readers the same as
display:none does.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Woods
Sent: 24 October 2007 22:04
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Minimum width help
Actual
I use keyboard controls a lot too, and generally regard the use of tabindex
as a sign that a site was not designed properly in the first place. It
causes a number of problems such as being unable to predict where the focus
is going to go next. How can the designer predict what the user will want to
This raises several issues. Firstly, screen readers are not all the same, so
you cannot test with one and assume the others will work just as well. Some
announce the presence of some semantic structure, some don't announce any at
all and some (I'm thinking primarily of Firevox) announce too much. T
"i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to
the footer/copyright"
In my experience they often do, although that's not because they are looking
for it. Remember that a screen reader user has no idea how long a page is
until they get to the end. They may be one line fr
Another thought. Are you planning to position the navigation at the top of
the page even though it is at the end of the source? If so, I would say
unequivocally that is the wrong thing to do.
This will adversely affect anyone who uses keyboard navigation, because the
tab sequence will not be anyth
The only research on this was on a tiny number of screen reader users (18 as
I recall) and they had a very slight bias towards haing the navigation
first. However, there were differences between people of differing ability.
Experienced users tended to just deal with whatever was thrown at them,
whe
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 08/10/2007, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero."
>
> Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I
> am dismayed to encounter in this gr
It is, but compliance with the WCAG doesn't automatically guarantee an
accessible site, so my statement stands. To build websites that are truly
accessible it is necessary to understand how people perceive the content and
interact with it. The WCAG are a good start but they only get you so far.
St
"The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero."
Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am
dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal
accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part.
"As a designer/develo
eph Ortenzi
Sent: 04 October 2007 12:16
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Sorry I have to disagree some of these points.
Comments among your text >>
On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:56, Steve Green wrote:
> "can anybody help
"I suspect that this lawsuit was premature"
The WCAG were published 8 years ago. How long should we wait? I don't know
when Section 508 came into law but the UK's DDA was passed in 1995. Seems
like long enough to me.
"But if this judge's decision becomes du jour..."
It won't. Courts will assess
"can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs
money comes from?"
It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the target
audience. I would concede that it probably doesn't cost more to produce a
standards-compliant static website (i.e. has semantic struct
Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is
relatively easy and the incremental cost is small.
As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful
things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read
Braille. However, many have a
I think you'll find the people of Tibet didn't build Mount Everest and
weren't even able to influence its design.
Target chose to design their site the way they did, and a professional
designer would have known that they were excluding some people from using
the website. In the face of such wilfu
I find it hard to believe I'm reading this in the WSG. The Target website is
truly appalling - we use it to illustrate some the worst possible design
practices when we run training sessions. It discriminates against anyone who
has to use a non-graphical user agent (not just blind people), and this
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html contains a checklist. This
page links to others that explain the individual checkpoints in more (but
not necessarily adequate) detail.
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Web
Checkpoints a. to k. correspond directly to WCAG
One of our trainers tells me that only 4% of blind people have no sight at
all. Some may not be able to see a few feet in front of them and need a
guide dog to walk up the street, yet they can see a screen close-up and may
not even need a screen reader (although they would probably benefit from
usi
I have IE7 on Windows XP SP2 and all the Zip files download ok. Some of them
contain Word documents, and the machine opens these in WordPad because I
don't have Word on it. I get the error message "Unable to load graphics
conversion filter", which is probably to be expected. The document still
open
I am one of Accessites' partners, so I am very familiar with the Showcase.
There are certainly some very good sites there, but in the 18 months or so
that the site has been live only 5 have achieved the Classic rating and none
has achieved the top rating of Timeless.
The 5 Classic sites are very g
The http://www.fosterandpartners.com is not a good example at all. I can see
at a glance that it violates at least three WCAG Priority 2 checkpoints, and
that's without even looking at the code. Some pages violate Priority 1
requirements too.
That's a shame because I really need stunning examples
"Explain to them how much more money they can make..."
Just how much can they make? Where's the proof? That's what they always ask
and that's what we can't answer. There are no plausible case studies to
support this. It's pure conjecture. Yes I do know about the Legal & General
case study but so m
Our customer is one of the largest corporations in the world. They have
several hundred brands, each of which is valued at upwards of $100M. Most of
these brands are many decades old and have historically been advertised in
traditional media such as print, TV, billboards etc. Style is everything,
p
I would like to agree with you Joe but I currently have a battle with
several design agencies who work for a multinational client of ours.
Historically they have produced websites that are predominantly Flash-based
or sliced and diced from PhotoShop. Our client wants to achieve WCAG AA and
the agen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:50 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Screen Reader Accessible Navigation Suggestions
That's not a big site so I would expect that two lists for the primary and
secondary
That's not a big site so I would expect that two lists for the primary and
secondary navigation would be sufficient. Use a third list if you need a
third level of navigation. I would advise against nesting the second and
third level navigation lists, which is what people often do. It may be
semanti
The Samurai Errata have no official status so there are no certificates or
validators. They have "authority tone" because that's Joe Clark's style, not
because they have any authority. They are some good ideas written by some
clever people (or one clever person if you believe some of the theories).
Internet Explorer users can use Alt+Down Arrow to open the SELECT element
and then use the arrow keys to navigate within it without triggering the
onChange event. One of our JAWS users does this as a matter of course for
every combobox because he cannot know if they have an onChange event
attached
want to come early. We are scheduled to finish at 5:30pm but
you are welcome to stay afterwards to get some hands-on experience or look
at some more websites.
If anyone would like to attend this demo or a future one please fill in the
form at http://www.accessibility.co.uk/free_jaws_demo.htm.
Steve
JAWS reads legends in 'virtual cursor mode' and in 'forms mode' but it reads
them differently in the two modes.
In 'virtual cursor mode', which is the normal mode of operation for websites
and PDFs, it will simply read the legend when it reaches that element. It
does not announce the element type
I can't generalise about screen readers, but JAWS would read the legend as
if it were any other paragraph i.e. it would not differentiate it from the
other text in the way it does with headers. The user may or may not work out
for themselves that it is the start of a new section of content.
JAWS'
Jackie, you said "I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with
headers & p tags etc churned out repeatedly down the page". Why not? It is
clearly the most appropriate way to mark up that content. And what would the
use of fieldsets change? You would still have the same quantity of markup
e
I totally disagree with Lucien. It's nonsensical to suggest you can just
ignore parts of a sentence that you find inconvenient. The definition is
totally unambiguous - it states "group thematically related controls and
labels", not "group thematically related content such as controls and
labels".
I'll be there. Anyone else?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Swan, Henny
Sent: 29 May 2007 17:19
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Web Accessibility Update from Shawn Henry, London, Tuesday 5
June
Hi All,
Shawn Henry wi
Mike, you're correct, at least with respect to JAWS. In 'forms mode' it will
only read links and form controls including their labels, legends and
contents. Two other aspects of behaviour that are worth mentioning are:
1. In 'virtual cursor mode' i.e. when not in 'forms mode', JAWS does not
read t
Totally agree. Applying 'title' attributes to block level elements is a
nightmare for users of screen magnifiers because they can't figure out how
to get rid of the tooltip whilst keeping the content in view. You would be
surprised how much of the screen is obscured by a tooltip at magnification
le
To answer the question, JAWS is the most widely used screen reader by a long
way in the English speaking world and some other markets, and anecdotal
evidence suggests that it is invariably used without any relevant changes to
the configuration settings. I hesitate to call it a standard because its
Certainly JAWS reads the content of the element before each
element as described previously, and I agree about keeping the legend short.
My understanding is that other 'professional' screen readers also do,
although some of the free ones may not since they typically have greatly
reduced functiona
"when the oh-so-clever designer has abused CSS to make the seventh item
appear in third place"
We had a classic case of this yesterday while doing one of our JAWS demos
for a group of developers (www.accessibility.co.uk/free_jaws_demo.htm in
case anyone is interested in coming to the next one). Th
My understanding of Australian law is that it is explicitly permitted as
long as the wombat is consenting, of legal age and of the opposite sex.
Under-age, gay wombat sex is rightly prohibited in Australia, although the
law's path through parliament was apparently far from smooth.
Steve
-O
tter. A table is for tabular data, and if your using it to style your page
you need to take a strong look at what your doing. Tables for layout,
regardless of what your laying out is wrong.
On 5/22/07, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see how using a table is any worse tha
I don't see how using a table is any worse than using a definition list.
Both are wrong. Any spurious argument you use to justify a definition list
can equally apply to a table. CSS can usually achieve anything you want
visually.
Steve
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
We provide voice recognition training for people who want to get the best
out of Naturally Speaking. I have not tried what you are suggesting but I
would expect the error rate to be unacceptable with NS version 8 or earlier
because they rely on you training the machine to recognise your voice by
re
This kind of design always causes problems during user testing because a
screen reader user does not know what comes after form controls when they
occur in the middle of a line. In fact they don't even know it's in the
middle of a line.
You are asking them to read the whole sentence then go back
t has to do with the rendering source platform from my meager
testing.
Converting it to HTML is not always practical given the business based cost
considerations for say 1000, 200 page documents.
Gary Barber
radharc
radharc.com.au
manwithnoblog.com
Steve Green wrote:
> That document makes it sound so
That document makes it sound so easy but there's s much it doesn't
mention. We do heaps of accessible PDFs and have the scars to prove it. The
manuals are incomplete, inaccurate and Acrobat Pro is very broken. Version 8
is so bad we uninstalled it and went back to version 7 because at least we
Your assumption is wrong. Screen readers read the text enclosed by the
element, not their 'for' attribute.
I am not aware of any circumstances under which any screen reader reads the
'for' attribute for a element, so it should be safe to use your
colleague's solution.
Last time I looked at various implementations of "lightbox" none were
accessible to the JAWS screen reader. I would be interested to know if
things have improved since then.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Dixon
Sent: 07 Marc
What I meant is that the so-called 'additional' information cannot be
additional. If it is essential information then it has to go in the current
page even if someone else says that is not acceptable. If it isn't, the site
will be inaccessible or unusable to some users.
There are all kinds of ways
Not everyone has a user agent that supports multiple windows or in-page
popups (e.g. JavaScript or CSS). How would you provide the additional
information to these people?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Faulds
Sent: 07 March 2
"This sounds like a perfect application for Ajax. Have the TOC on the left,
the actual document on the right... opens as you click through the TOC?
Just a thought..."
Or frames! Only kidding, even though they would be way more accessible than
an AJAX 'solution'.
Steve
***
nce of, warnings that the next page will be in a different document
format or will open in a new window. So my advice is to avoid non-HTML
document types and to avoid opening new windows unless there is genuinely no
option.
Steve Green
Director
Test Partners Ltd / First Accessibility
www
lity would
be useful. You would have to explain what it was for, and at that point the
user has no way of deciding whether to turn it off or not.
The way you implement this could affect other user groups too. Can you be
more specific about what you want to do?
Steve Green
Director
Test Partners
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
