Re: [WSG] accessible calendars? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Smashing Magazine have done an article on loads of different types. Most should be easy to make accessible: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/10/23/online-calendars-and-date-pickers/ Rob -- Rob Mason t/a Sponge Project www.spongeproject.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Alt text for purely aesthetic images
I have two questions regarding images added via CSS.
1) I added an image for each bullet via CSS .box ul li. How do I specify alt
text in this situation? Do I add alt text in the HTML...even though there
would be no image if CSS was disabled?
Since it adds no meaning/information, it doesn't need alt text.
Think of it this way: what would there be to include as alt text? Each
list item has already been identified by the markup as being a list
item. The bullet image is just a prettier version of the default
bullet. Adding alt text would just be annoying to anyone who really
needs it.
2) What is the implication (what do I need to do) for purely
presenation/aesthetic images?
Either insert them via CSS or use alt=.
WCAG Samurai Errata for WCAG 1.0 cover this too -
http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html
Corrections to Guideline 1.1
You can leave a text equivalent blank (e.g., null alt text, alt=) if
immediately-
preceding or -following text has the same function as a text equivalent.
...
If images must be used for list bullets, do so only using CSS, as with
ul { list-style: url(arrow.gif) disc }
cheers,
Ben
--
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
[WSG] Fwd: WSG Digest
Hi James, Ok, that's good statement. I like it. Aesthetic goes in CSS and therefore no need for ALT text. Cheers, P.s. My wife was flattered by your compliment. :-) * From: James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:05:27 +0100 Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Alt text for purely aesthetic images This is my view. If an image is for aesthetic purposes, it should be in with the CSS. If an image is to be used as part of the content, for example, the image of your wife, then it should be within img tags. I would say that is common sense to be honest. If you turn of the CSS would you want your users to see images that make no sense in relation to the content, because without the positioning of these images they will displayed in normal flow and leave users scratching their heads. Or lets say a blind person coming across empty alt attributes, or alt attributes that say alt=Rounded corner for the top left header. The WAI have laid out these guidelines for good reason, follow them. Unless there is damn good reason to go against them. Ps. your wife is pretty, she looks like a high achiever James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Accessibility awareness vs site's cleanliness
Hi, So...again with reference to http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/ I am on track to add the WCAG conformance logo: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html and the XHTML compliance could also be added (and CSS I suppose)... However, my client (my wife) is none too happy about me adding the logo(s)...as she believes that will spoil the clean feel of the site. Even Form 1 of the WCAG compliance in text This page conforms to W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505, level Double-A. is a tad wordy. So...how can I spread the good word of valid CSS, XHTML and WCAG...without spoiling the site with verbose text or logos? Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility awareness vs site's cleanliness
On 10/27/07, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So...how can I spread the good word of valid CSS, XHTML and WCAG...without spoiling the site with verbose text or logos? To be honest, I wouldn't bother. If the client doesn't want it, and it's not adding anything to the site, why are you doing it? -- Olly http://thinkdrastic.net/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility awareness vs site's cleanliness
Simon Cockayne wrote: However, my client (my wife) is none too happy about me adding the logo(s)...as she believes that will spoil the clean feel of the site. And I'd say he's right. To the end user of the site, it's completely irrelevant. So...how can I spread the good word of valid CSS, XHTML and WCAG...without spoiling the site with verbose text or logos? Badges on a site won't do it. Spread the word by talking to colleagues in your area, participating in forums, mailing lists, running show and tell sessions at local web developer meetups, writing case studies to put on your blog, etc. IMHO, of course, P -- 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Alt text for purely aesthetic images
There is really no hard and fast rule that states all presentational images should be background images, there are plenty of situations where is is not practical or inappropriate, as others have stated if an images is purely for presentation than an empty alt attribute (alt=) is appropriate. Not all content images require alt text in the alt attribute, if the surrounding content provides the relevant alternative text than an empty alt attribute is appropriate. Here is a good article on the appropriate use of alt text. http://www.webaim.org/techniques/alttext/ - Mel On 10/26/07, John Faulds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the images are in the CSS, then there's no need for alt attributes. Conversely, if you believe an image should have alt text, then it shouldn't be in the CSS as a bg-image. On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:20:23 +1000, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi again... Whoops...butterfingers I unwittingly hit send before completing my email. Anywise...here is what it should have said: Hi, WCAG 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/) states: Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content Provide content that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the same function or purpose as auditory or visual content 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via alt, longdesc, or in element content). *This includes*: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations ( e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. [Priority 1] I have two questions regarding images added via CSS. 1) I added an image for each bullet via CSS .box ul li. How do I specify alt text in this situation? Do I add alt text in the HTML...even though there would be no image if CSS was disabled? 2) What is the implication (what do I need to do) for purely presenation/aesthetic images? For example on my wife's microsite (that I built) http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/ what do I need to do, if anything, for the gifs that form rounded corners on the boxes, via CCS on .box, box2 et cetera? Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** 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] WCAG conformance and checking
Dave Woods wrote: http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/ A bit old now, but could still be of some use... http://www.webaim.org/articles/evaluatingwithfirefox/ -- 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
I am having an issue and I can't seem to see the whole picture objectively. Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have 'skip to content' in every site I do (sites I have control over the design and layout); when I do markup coding, clients often ignore the 'skip to content' and 'skip to nav' - I managed to convinced them a couple times with a compromise to hide it from browsers by using 'display:none', because, according to them, only screen users need 'skip to content'. I am doing a site that I have control on design and layout, client asked to remove the 'skip to content' when I showed him the first layout, I tried to talk him out by stating how important it is to have the 'skip to content' implemented. He didn't buy it, so I came out with this technique: teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result). Haven't show it to client yet. Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. There is no way to miss it everytime I move the cursor to the top. If I, the site builder, find it annoying, what will the users find ? I am beginning to think this is causing a usability issue and is killing all other usable elements that I work so hard to try to get them right. Please give me your thought. Many thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Tee G. Peng wrote:
... so I came out with this technique:
teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result).
Haven't show it to client yet. Been working on this site in the
last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise'
everytime the hover pops up. There is no way to miss it everytime I
move the cursor to the top.
I agree with you: the 'hover' technique is way more annoying, and it
will annoy way more people.
'skip links' should be visible all the time, as they are useful for
sighted users (e.g using the keyboard).
A compromise solution I have used: when a client doesn't want them,
hide them (position them of screen, not display:none), but make them
visible when those links are focussed (by pressing the tab key).
a.skiplinks {position:absolute; left: -999em;}
a.skiplinks:focus,
a.skiplinks:active {left: 1em;}
:active state is for iExploder. Add additional styling to taste.
Not really perfect, just a compromise.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. There is no way to miss it everytime I move the cursor to the top. Leaving aside considerations as to whether you should actually be bothering after the client has explicity requested it not be implemented, if you're looking for a more unobtrusive option, don't make the link display: block, just let the link text area be clickable. After all, with this method, you're not really expecting any mouse user to find it, so increasing the clickable area is a bit pointless. Also, don't change the background-color; just make the link text appear. -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
At 7:44 PM -0700 10/27/07, Tee G. Peng wrote: I am having an issue and I can't seem to see the whole picture objectively. Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have 'skip to content' in every site I do (sites I have control over the design and layout); when I do markup coding, clients often ignore the 'skip to content' and 'skip to nav' - I managed to convinced them a couple times with a compromise to hide it from browsers by using 'display:none', because, according to them, only screen users need 'skip to content'. I am doing a site that I have control on design and layout, client asked to remove the 'skip to content' when I showed him the first layout, I tried to talk him out by stating how important it is to have the 'skip to content' implemented. He didn't buy it, so I came out with this technique: teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result). Hi Tee, I appreciate your desire to provide navigational accessibility for disabled users however Skip to content is not the best way to do it. Most disabled users, particularly sight impaired, will use your header markup to navigate the page rather than skip links. Most often the audience who need the skip nav functionality will be using an accessible browser like Firefox which allows them to display a header list whereby they can easily surf through a properly structured page which makes use of header tags. You've done a fairly good job on the teesworks page using header tags so the skip to content link is not going to serve much purpose. Also keep in mind that display:none and visibility:hidden remove content from screen readers. A screen reader will not pick up elements styled like that so unless that's your purpose, don't use those kinds of rules in your CSS for markup you intend for a screen reader. Nice page btw. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** Campus Accessibility Liaison *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Leopard mail and standards
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10/22/07, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have you tried outlook 2007 Lately? the way it reads/displays html has been THE issue ever since it was released. No. I'd assumed it displayed the same as OE6 or Windows Mail (Vista). A.. it doesn't. You should do a test and send us your results. For the type of announcements we send out, the problems are minimal. In testing, we find that Font-family is not properly picked up and padding is junked. So this page, representative of our mailings, is acceptable and not, in our opinion worth the bother of hacking up: http://www.projectseven.com/products/menusystems/pmm/style-packs/pmmsp/mail/ I guess the bottom line is to keep it simple. It's only an email. A bigger problem for html email senders is what happens when the page is viewed in some web-based mails. -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Extending Dreamweaver - Nav Systems | Galleries | Widgets Authors: 42nd Street: Mastering the Art of CSS Design *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Tee G. Peng wrote: teesworks.com/ Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. If I, the site builder, find it annoying, what will the users find ? As a user I find that kind of visual flicker highly annoying. I am beginning to think this is causing a usability issue and is killing all other usable elements that I work so hard to try to get them right. A 'Skip to content' link may have its uses, but I don't see much need for one in that design - too few links to skip (at least in that dev page). Basic accessibility is too hard to sell anyway, and I don't see the point in annoying clients and/or the majority of users with such minor issues when there are so many other practical issues to take care of and spend dev-time on. Personally I don't provide skip to (whatever) links in a design unless there's a client-request for them, and then I style them without any flicker effects. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
