RE: [WSG] XHTML+Voice
This is very interesting, I've tried it and it worked like charm in my Opera (Just needs to enable voice in the advanced TAB and then that will automatically redirect you to download some files less then 3 minutes). I couldn't find similar options in IE6/7 or Firefox sadly. M. Jama big:interactive 91 Princedale Road Holland Park London W11 4NS Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Direct: +44 (0)20 7313 2262 www.biggroup.co.uk -- big:group is an integrated marketing agency comprising big:direction, big:media, big:management, big:promotions,big:pr, big:production, big:creative and big:interactive -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tee G. Peng Sent: 08 September 2007 04:35 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML+Voice Hi Philippe, a quick question before I forgot to ask. A bit off-topic: yes I use VoiceOver sometimes; the built-in voice options are awful, so far Vicki is the only one I can listen for more than 15 mintues. I'd been wanting to purhcase a pleasant voice sample but don't know where to look. Anybody knows about this? Hopefully Leapord will improve. tee *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Mon, September 10, 2007 1:44 am, Nick Gleitzman wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Absolutely. But this whole thread started with the issue of whether alt text should be optional in HTML5. Well, that's simple enough. The only reason the alt-text is being proposed to be optional is because Microsoft are involved with defining HTML5. Microsoft have always been against standards; they chose not to be involved with XHTML and (having seen the threat that represented to them) have joined with HTML5 in order to water down the standards. Microsoft have millions of legacy Websites built with their own proprietary, non-standards HTML using their deficient WYSIWYG software. If those sites fall down in Standards compliant browsers, Microsoft has egg on it's face for going against standards in the first place and millions of complaining customers. This also the reason they have never produced a Standards compliant browser - they have to cater for backwards compatibility with all those sites written in their proprietary versions of HTML. This is why alt-text is proposed being optional - its nothing to do with it's effectiveness as an aid to accessibility or anything to do with improving standards. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Mon, September 10, 2007 2:24 am, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: A photocopy may be a poor, 2-dimensional representation of the real thing, but a blank piece of paper isn't anything at all... Which is more useful? Depends on whether you're just curious what a sandwich looks like or you're starving, I guess -- if the latter, the answer is neither :-) Or if you're really starving - the blank piece of paper (less chemical additives) ;-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On 9 Sep 2007, at 16:33, Michael Yeaney wrote: I find it interesting that everyone responding to this thread has failed to mention one very important aspect of any design-for-accessibility debate: Until you actually test it with a target audience/persona (i.e., someone who actually **is** blind), People seem to be rather hung up on the idea that alt text is for blind people. Some sighted people do use text browsers. Some sighted people do disable images in their browsers (I'm one of them and my last cellphone bill still had £20 of data charges on it). Then there are search engine indexing bots, and probably a host of other use cases. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Hi Stuart On 10/09/2007, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, September 10, 2007 1:44 am, Nick Gleitzman wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Absolutely. But this whole thread started with the issue of whether alt text should be optional in HTML5. Well, that's simple enough. The only reason the alt-text is being proposed to be optional is because Microsoft are involved with defining HTML5. OK I have *no intention* of stirring the pot on this one, but I do need to know how much of your statement is Fact and how much is Opinion? I know that there are members of the HTML 5 WG that don't support inclusion of the alt attribute in the proposed specs - that's how this thread started- but if you're going to throught comments like that around, can you reference them for readers of the thread? Microsoft have always been against standards; they chose not to be involved with XHTML and (having seen the threat that represented to them) have joined with HTML5 in order to water down the standards. The HTML 5 WG actually has both MS and Opera staff working on it. Lachlan Hunt who commented on this thread earlier is on the HTML 5 WG and is going to work for opera in a month or so. ... -- Lisa Herrod Scenarioseven.com.au Scenariogirl.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/07 10:31 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: On a side note, I can't help but notice that almost every site that has been cited as a reference for reasons why default text size should not be tampered with has a very minimal level of 'design styling'. For example: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html Not everyone expects the same thing from the WWW, just as not every page is designed by a designer, just as not every page author places the same relative importance on appearance compared to content. Sometimes simplicity is the design, or part of the design. Those pages share one common purpose - conveying information - by people who believe the message is more important than the style. In every case, legibility will not be a problem for their visitors whose UA is reasonably configured. They would all convey the same message if styled as this: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaultsb Now, I'm not going to dispute that these are very accessible sites from a type-size perspective. And, yes, they present their information without unnecessary distraction. But I can also guarantee that if I took a 'design' like that of any of those sites to a client, said client would be out the door and off to my competitors faster than I could say Accessibility. Their goals are message conveyance, not facilitating exit or entertaining visually. Navigation there is incidental or unnecessary. Distractions are definitely undesired. Since none are designs as the term is ordinarily used by designers, they aren't intended as and shouldn't be used as examples of design, unless the context is one of usability or accessibility discussion, or the client is a Joe Friday (just the facts, no nonsense) type. Maybe it's just coincidence. But none of those sites telling me that I can create perfectly nice-looking, commercially viable designs using default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their mouth is. That's inaccurate, though sites that profess and/or urge accessibility and/or usability commonly don't put their money where there mouth is either http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . Simple examples: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrq.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ *That does not make the points they raise wrong*, but it means that it feels a bit like having my dress sense criticised by someone wearing a dirty t-shirt and torn sweat pants. I wouldn't equate clean and uncluttered pages to tattered and dirty clothes. Maybe more like criticizm for wearing inappropriate attire, like thongs or pasties, in places ordinary adults and children frequent, like shopping malls, or an evening gown to the beach, or work uniforms to a funeral. Design should fit purpose. Simple purpose, simple design. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 10/9/07 (14:27) Felix said: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . To be fair, Felix, I never said that the sites advocating default text sizes *should* be highly designed; I merely noted the irony that they were not, given that they were telling designers how to size type. The link above reminded me to raise one of your points again, because it struck me as counter-intuitive. No doubt I misinterpreted your reasoning, so perhaps you could help me out with a bit of clarification. The bit in question is this: Do you suppose most web authors are using little old computer displays to do their work 40 hours per week. Not likely, is it? No, as a group, they have fine equipment, typically using displays much larger than average, 21 or larger in many cases. So, their concept of how big is big enough is further skewed smaller than average. You appear to be saying that the larger screens used by designers tempt them to err on the smaller side when sizing type. But larger screens generally mean higher resolutions, with a given type size (say 14px) therefore appearing smaller on a bigger screen than it would on a smaller one. Eg. 12px type looks much bigger (physicallly) at 800x600 than it does at 1600x1200. Indeed, it's an argument that you have used yourself in favour of increasing type size; as screens evolve their native resolution increases and so the same (nominal) type specification looks progressively smaller with each generation of screen. All perfectly logical. *Except* that it seems to me that when something looks smaller, the natural tendency -- even for freaky, bizarre, bad-in-the-head designers -- is to make things larger to compensate. Surely, the logical follow-through of stating that designers use larger, higher-resolution screens than the average, should be that they are therefore more inclined to make their type larger? Yet you appear to argue the opposite. Can you clarify this point, because it's been bugging me. Cheers. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/10 17:03 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: On 10/9/07 (14:27) Felix said: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . To be fair, Felix, I never said that the sites advocating default text sizes *should* be highly designed; I merely noted the irony that they were not, given that they were telling designers how to size type. . The link above reminded me to raise one of your points again, because it struck me as counter-intuitive. No doubt I misinterpreted your reasoning, so perhaps you could help me out with a bit of clarification. The bit in question is this: Do you suppose most web authors are using little old computer displays to do their work 40 hours per week. Not likely, is it? No, as a group, they have fine equipment, typically using displays much larger than average, 21 or larger in many cases. So, their concept of how big is big enough is further skewed smaller than average. You appear to be saying that the larger screens used by designers tempt them to err on the smaller side when sizing type. But larger screens generally mean higher resolutions, with a given type size (say 14px) therefore appearing smaller on a bigger screen than it would on a smaller one. Eg. 12px type looks much bigger (physicallly) at 800x600 than it does at 1600x1200. Larger LCD screens do indeed tend to be accompanied by higher actual DPI, and thus smaller objects at any given px size. However, it is not a given that the more astute designers are using LCD displays. They do save desktop space. They do save energy. And they do currently dominate store shelf space. However, they don't play nice for those who wish to use them at their non-native resolution. Their native resolution usually is the highest resolution they offer. Higher is impossible. Picture quality is greatly reduced when run lower. In order to test a design properly one must test under a wide range of conditions. One of these conditions is widely considered to be screen resolution. A designer from such a class has to choose between using multiple displays of varying resolution (LCD), and using a single display equally capable of varying resolutions (CRT). I have to speculate that a lot of designers who aren't new to the business, maybe most, are still using CRTs, and avoiding a switch to LCD for this reason. Indeed, it's an argument that you have used yourself in favour of increasing type size; as screens evolve their native resolution increases and so the same (nominal) type specification looks progressively smaller with each generation of screen. All perfectly logical. *Except* that it seems to me that when something looks smaller, the natural tendency -- even for freaky, bizarre, bad-in-the-head designers -- is to make things larger to compensate. I think most resist Surely, the logical follow-through of stating that designers use larger, higher-resolution screens than the average, should be that they are therefore more inclined to make their type larger? Yet you appear to argue the opposite. I believe most designers at some level feel it necessary or at least desirable to at least think they see from the same perspective as average users. A part of doing that is using the resolution visitors most often use, in recent years, 1024x768, or as close as possible without making the whole OS UI seem gigantic to themselves. I hypothecate going beyond 1280x960/1024 is something most shy away from, and that fewer choose to go beyond 1600x1200, at least not if they don't have at least a nominal 21 (19 actual) CRT. The net result is a belief that the average designer who still uses a CRT is not running a real DPI materially higher, but instead is more likely to be running roughly the same or less, in effect, using his bigger display to make things easier on the eyes by being bigger. OTOH, those who are indeed running a higher real DPI, whether LCD or CRT, are probably quite comfortable with their choices, as with with things small generally, like other detail-oriented people. Can you clarify this point, because it's been bugging me. Cheers. Remember, most of the forgoing is conjecture and empirical observations. I've seen no scientifically acquired data to either support or contradict most of it. If you take a study of http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi and http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-pt2px-tabled you might reach similar conclusions. You may also notice that desktop displays in stock in stores offer native resolutions that tend not to deviate very widely from the 90-96 range that doz defaults to assuming, while laptops sport considerably less, roughly equivalent to the difference between 120 DPI that they tend to have been set to by their manufacturers, and 96. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in
RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Lachlan Hunt wrote: What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) Currently, most screen technology would prefer alt=, as this signals that the value string for ALT is... Nothing. Not great, to be sure, but better than DC10567.jpg or echoing back information provided elsewhere (through @caption or @title or similar) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) Wikipedia should allow users to specify alt text (it currently does not). By design, when uploading an image, there should be a default table in the DB for alternative text. Given the many times that images in tools such as wikipedia re-use images, content authors should be prompted to use the default alternative text, or supply 'new' alt text. Currently wikipedia's answer is to not allow content contributors to provide *any* alt text. What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? Same as above What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? Same as above What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? This one is trickier, and makes presumptions that are not in evidence. For example, this presumes that everyone is using HTML rich email, a bad presumption. It secondly presumes that personal one-to-one correspondence might be shared, a bit of a stretch. However, assuming that a user is creating HTML rich email in an authoring environment like Outlook, the tool should prompt for alt text similar to what tools such as Dreamweaver should do, and provide the same fallback: alt=. In online environments (Yahoo!Mail or Gmail or what-ever) then they should handle this question like Flickr and Photobucket would. Nothing in the world will be able to force a content creator to do the right thing, however entrenching the option to do the wrong thing should never be considered as part of an emergent spec. If currently the tools don't get it right, fix the tools, don't change the rules. JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
