...@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
@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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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/
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
50 matches
Mail list logo
