Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Interesting. Thanks Thierry! On 3/12/08, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Matt Fellows > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM > > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > > Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site > > > > > I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more > > > hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for > > > specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular > > > browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are > > > likely to wish to utilise. > > > > > I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is > > the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser > > vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point > > 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence > > when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not > > using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three > > links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time > > anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many > > circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile > > access etc. > > > User defined Access Keys may be a solution: > http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp > > > > -- > Regards, > Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com > > > > > > > > *** > 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 2 implementation site
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matt Fellows > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site > > > I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more > > hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for > > specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular > > browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are > > likely to wish to utilise. > > I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is > the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser > vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point > 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence > when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not > using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three > links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time > anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many > circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile > access etc. User defined Access Keys may be a solution: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
> I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more > hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for > specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular > browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are > likely to wish to utilise. I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile access etc. Anywho thanks for the comments guys! Matt *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP
Thank you and my apologies if was indeed off-subject. My thinking was that this is indeed a standards right-or-wrong issue when looking out for the users. - kevin --- Original Message --- From:Martin Heiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent:Tue 3/11/08 3:28 pm To:"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Subj:Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP Kevin, well, I think it ist completely off topic, but anyway: You mean that http://my.server.com/folder/file.html shows the same HTML document as https://my.server.com/folder/file.html ? Make sure you use only relative links in the .html so that the secure connection is used for all linked files/pictures/css... Configure your server to use the same document root for the https and http virtual hosts. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#parallel http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/ If you have more questions, feel free to contact me off list! regards, Martin Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 6:11:57 PM, you wrote: kcn> What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to kcn> go to the HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not kcn> misleading the users by any means. kcn> I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be. kcn> Thank you for your thoughts. kcn> kevin *** 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 2 implementation site
Rick Lecoat wrote: I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. thats my understanding too. Firstly, you have to communicate to the user what the access keys are for which there are no clear guidelines I know of, and secondly, whats to say your choice of keys doesn't conflict with existing ones the user has set? The only way i see access keys becoming useful is if user agent vendors agree on and implement some kind of name-spacing scheme for author defined keys to prevent conflicts -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
On 11 Mar 2008, at 22:38, Matt Fellows wrote: I also like the way you have not gone with the basic "skip to content" link and gone with a quick "skip to" menu, I have been advocating a similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as well. Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? Matt; I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are likely to wish to utilise. I don't know whether that is the general consensus or not, nor can I say whether that was Mike's reason for not using acesskey, but it makes sense to me. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Matt wrote: > > I also like the way you have not gone with the basic "skip to content" > link and gone with a quick "skip to" menu, I have been advocating a > similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as > well. > > Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? > I'm not Mike, but I'll observe that access keys are not universally admired. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
Nice work Mike, I quite like the way you've used to separate the content for non-css and used display:none in the other case, it chunks the content quite well. I also like the way you have not gone with the basic "skip to content" link and gone with a quick "skip to" menu, I have been advocating a similar approach that integrates access key's into these menu's as well. Is there a reason for not using 'accesskey' at all? Cheers, Matt On 3/12/08, dwain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nice job! has the feel of web 2.0. > dwain > Web 2.0? Am I looking at the wrong site (http://lflegal.com/)? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
nice job! has the feel of web 2.0. dwain On 3/11/08, Mike at Green-Beast.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the > WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a > link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221. > > Cheers. > Mike Cherim > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- dwain alford "The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression." Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re[2]: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP
Kevin, well, I think it ist completely off topic, but anyway: You mean that http://my.server.com/folder/file.html shows the same HTML document as https://my.server.com/folder/file.html ? Make sure you use only relative links in the .html so that the secure connection is used for all linked files/pictures/css... Configure your server to use the same document root for the https and http virtual hosts. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#parallel http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/ If you have more questions, feel free to contact me off list! regards, Martin Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 6:11:57 PM, you wrote: kcn> What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to kcn> go to the HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not kcn> misleading the users by any means. kcn> I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be. kcn> Thank you for your thoughts. kcn> kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site
I don't recall who had asked for the link, but I have finally launched the WCAG 2 implementation site that was mentioned. Info about it as well as a link to the site can be found here: http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221. Cheers. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP
What I meant is that an HTTP URL I have come up with is going to go to the HTTPS pages seamlessly within the browser. I am not misleading the users by any means. I am not 100% sure this is on topic as well but I believe it should be. Thank you for your thoughts. kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP
Hello Kevin, What exactly do you mean by proxying in this sense? I'll just assume some stuff :) If what your visitors are viewing is sent to them via a HTTP connection only, you're not misleading them (unless you tell them it's a safe connection), but you're also not using HTTPS. I assume that the webserver serving out the page does talk to another webserver over HTTPS but your visitors don't. So if this is the case, misleading no, but wrong, very likely. On the other hand, if what your visitors are viewing what's sent to them both via HTTP and HTTPS (for instance images and other static content via HTTP and the rest via HTTPS) then you're not misleading them but browsers might start to complain about some parts of the page not being sent over a secure connection. If this is the case, also not misleading or wrong, but not too sure if it's the nicest way of doing this. On a sidenote. I've only been following WSG for a few days now and I'm not entirely sure if this is on-topic. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to discuss this off the list. Matijs On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a few HTTPS pages on a separate URL that display dynamic information, > (names, titles and telephone numbers, etc.), from a database. 99% of my pages > are static HTTP pages. I want the URL for all my pages to be same as much as > possible. I would like to proxy the HTTPS pages to my HTTP URL to have all > pages fall under the same HTTP URL? > I am trying to find out if this is misleading in any way to my web site > visitors or wrong? > > Thank you, > > Kevin > > > *** > 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] ***
[WSG] Proxy HTTPS to HTTP
Hello, I have a few HTTPS pages on a separate URL that display dynamic information, (names, titles and telephone numbers, etc.), from a database. 99% of my pages are static HTTP pages. I want the URL for all my pages to be same as much as possible. I would like to proxy the HTTPS pages to my HTTP URL to have all pages fall under the same HTTP URL? I am trying to find out if this is misleading in any way to my web site visitors or wrong? Thank you, Kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
