[WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread Maarten Stolte
Hello,

I'm trying to find out if there are any resources on AJAX and accesibility.
It seems to me that if I would employ AJAX technologies on my site to enable a 
richer application experience, I would still need to code for non-JavaScript 
useragents . I also think that with screenreaders, lots of AJAX tricks would be 
hard to parse, even if such a reader would have JavaScript. 

Do these things hold true, and are there other things that I need to take into 
account?

regards,

Maarten Stolte


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread Richard Czeiger

http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/03/01/16-ajax-and-accessibility

http://adactio.com/journal/display.php/20050308163812.xml

- Original Message - 
From: Maarten Stolte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:55 PM
Subject: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility


Hello,

I'm trying to find out if there are any resources on AJAX and accesibility.
It seems to me that if I would employ AJAX technologies on my site to enable 
a richer application experience, I would still need to code for 
non-JavaScript useragents . I also think that with screenreaders, lots of 
AJAX tricks would be hard to parse, even if such a reader would have 
JavaScript.


Do these things hold true, and are there other things that I need to take 
into account?


regards,

Maarten Stolte


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%

2005-06-29 Thread Jens Grochtdreis

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

* from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when 
calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller 
than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, 
resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I 
don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest)




Hi Patrick,

IIRC Opera has had these rounding problems with number 6. I haven't 
tested newer versions. Those who are still using Opera 6 don't deserve 
better :-)


The reason for taking 100.01% instead of 101% is called Safari. If you 
use 101% everything is okay except the huge texts in Safari. In the 
older Safari-versions I am sure this bug exists. I don't know if this 
bug has been fixed. Unfortunately Sarafi is not well documented and I 
don't use Macs.


So with 100.01% you are on the safe side.

Isn't CSS nice with browsers which are coded as if maintained by 
6year-old kids ?


--
Greetings from Germany,

Jens Grochtdreis

[www.grochtdreis.de] [blog.grochtdreis.de] [www.css-faq.de]
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread James Denholm-Price
Check out Derek Featherstone's follow-up to his talk at @media for
some interesting viewpoints:
http://www.boxofchocolates.ca/archives/2005/06/12/javascript-and-accessibility#more-72

1. You probably always have to do the back end stuff anyway, even if
you can process lots of stuff that used to be back end on the client
using AJAX -- what if your most important visitor has JS disabled or
something (his firewall  mabe?) breaks AJAX?

2. Some screenreaders DO detect JS-driven changes to the DOM (e.g.
JAWS using IE) but I don't think it's definite what they see and what
they don't and as far as AJAX is concerned it's early days :-)

Just my 2p ... James

On 6/29/05, Maarten Stolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I'm trying to find out if there are any resources on AJAX and accesibility.
 It seems to me that if I would employ AJAX technologies on my site to enable 
 a richer application experience, I would still need to code for 
 non-JavaScript useragents . I also think that with screenreaders, lots of 
 AJAX tricks would be hard to parse, even if such a reader would have 
 JavaScript.
 
 Do these things hold true, and are there other things that I need to take 
 into account?
 
 regards,
 
 Maarten Stolte
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread Maarten Stolte
Hi,

thanks for the replies, I'm reading the three articles now, and they seem very 
useful.

regards,

Maarten

-Original Message-
From: James Denholm-Price [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:21:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

Check out Derek Featherstone's follow-up to his talk at @media for
some interesting viewpoints:
http://www.boxofchocolates.ca/archives/2005/06/12/javascript-and-accessibility#more-72

1. You probably always have to do the back end stuff anyway, even if
you can process lots of stuff that used to be back end on the client
using AJAX -- what if your most important visitor has JS disabled or
something (his firewall  mabe?) breaks AJAX?

2. Some screenreaders DO detect JS-driven changes to the DOM (e.g.
JAWS using IE) but I don't think it's definite what they see and what
they don't and as far as AJAX is concerned it's early days :-)

Just my 2p ... James

On 6/29/05, Maarten Stolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I'm trying to find out if there are any resources on AJAX and accesibility.
 It seems to me that if I would employ AJAX technologies on my site to enable 
 a richer application experience, I would still need to code for 
 non-JavaScript useragents . I also think that with screenreaders, lots of 
 AJAX tricks would be hard to parse, even if such a reader would have 
 JavaScript.
 
 Do these things hold true, and are there other things that I need to take 
 into account?
 
 regards,
 
 Maarten Stolte
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] drop shadows

2005-06-29 Thread James Smith








Hi all,



my first post to this list so here goes



I have a site www.flashforprogrammers.com,
each page floats on a background with a dropshadow. Im no
HTML fiend, a friend told me how to add the drop shadow. Its done thus:



div
style=width:700px;height:1250px;filter:shadow(color:black,direction:135);

div
style=width:682px;background:white;border:1px solid
black;padding:20px;



content



/div

/div/



The shadow looks great but the problem is that I have to
manually insert the height on each page. The pages are generated from XML
templates using XSLT so its not that laborious but still, there are
hundreds of pages so it takes time. I also like to leave a gap at
the bottom, after the main content, so that the user can scroll down a little
further.



So, my question is: is there a way for me to use this filter
drop shadow without the requirement to statically add the height to each page?
Would a bit of _javascript_ do the trick? Although Id rather not resort to
that. Also, Ive seen other implementations of drop shadows that rely on
an offset div element and these initially worked fine but they appear flaky in
practice and the explanations given on websites purporting to teach this stuff
I find barely comprehensible.



Can anyone help me out?



Also, any comments on the site in general would be great.
What are your opinions on using Flash for content in this way?



Kind regards,



Jim












RE: [WSG] Encoding, charsets and entities...

2005-06-29 Thread Richard Ishida
Hi Roberto,

I think this may answer many of your questions:
http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

RI



Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roberto Gorjão
 Sent: 15 June 2005 10:27
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] Encoding, charsets and entities...
 
 Hi,
 
 I’m trying to understand the pros and cons of different 
 charset encodings and I would like to know what your 
 experience tells you about this subject, notably:
 
 * Unicode encoding (UTF-8) seems to be more efficient than ISO
   charsets (iso-8859-1): It covers all the languages in a single
   encoding; it’s universal (or at least getting to be); it’s
   compatible with ASCII; some argue even that it’s quicker… Are
   there any drawbacks? Does the fact that the characters 
 Unicode may
   have different sizes affect string calculus with JavaScript?
   String lengths, character position retrieval and so on?
 * Where does the use of UTF leaves us regarding to entities? Some
   say that we don’t have to worry anymore with coding currency
   symbols or accented letters… Is that true? (I really 
 did never pay
   much attention to this matter and get used to see 
 Dreamweaver code
   automatically all accented letters that I insert in the 
 design tab
   (that’s almost the only reason why I use the design tab 
 nowadays…)
   but I think I would convert myself definitely to a much cheaper
   software if even this functionality turns out to be 
 useless). And
   what about quotation marks and less than and greater than signs?
   They seem to validate all right when inserted directly 
 on the code
   without any kind of special entities coding.
 * Which is the best way to declare it? I’ve noticed that
   webstandardsgroup.org page declares it only in the XML “prolog”
   and does not use any meta tag to do it as does for instance the
   Unicode.org page.
 
 Thank you.
 
 Roberto
 
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] javascript/DOM resources

2005-06-29 Thread James Denholm-Price
Hi Ted  [EMAIL PROTECTED],

Just trawling through list emails  this seems to have had no replies so my 2p:

I'm sure I remember Jeremy Keith  (http://adactio.com/) proposing a
central archive of modern JS scripts but can't quite find it right now
... try starting from e.g.
http://adactio.com/journal/search.php?query=dom+scripting
(he told the @media audience that DOM Scripting is the way to throw
off the DHTML bad vibes...)

A few JS gurus met up after @media  PPK's site seems to be a good
starting point for ensuing discussion:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/you_shouldve_be_1.html

Googling for ajax dom scripting throws up loads, including:
http://www.andybudd.com/links/javascript_and_the_dom/index.php
and a mention of the Sitepoint book DHTML Utopia: Modern Web Design
Using JavaScript  DOM.

HTH,
  James

On 5/3/05, Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi All
 I'm in the middle of a site reconstruction. The backbone is ready, the style
 sheets are ready, what's next? The javascript. We are still using a cookie
 script copyright 1996.
 
 I know there are tons of free javascript archives, but they are equally
 filled with scripts that live in the old days of tag soup.
 
 Is there a resource for javascripts that are designed for
 standards-compliant web sites. An archive of scripts that work with DOM and
 degrade well in non-javascript enabled browsers?
 
 I would love to approach the scripting team and say, can we replace this
 with this all-new javascript that will make our lives sooo much better?
 
 Thanks
 
 
 
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] drop shadows

2005-06-29 Thread Roberto Gorjão

Hi Jim,

So, my question is: is there a way for me to use this filter drop 
shadow without the requirement to statically add the height to each 
page? Would a bit of JavaScript do the trick? Although I’d rather not 
resort to that. Also, I’ve seen other implementations of drop shadows 
that rely on an offset div element and these initially worked fine but 
they appear flaky in practice and the explanations given on websites 
purporting to teach this stuff I find barely comprehensible


Filters are proprietary features from Internet Explorer (not part of any 
standard), therefore you will only see the shadows in that browser… The 
first question that I think you should ask yourself is: do I really want 
to use this feature?


If the answer is no, I would suggest to use a common structure to all 
your pages, with divs or tables (preferably divs, as you have already) 
and a background image repeating itself vertically or horizontally as 
needed.


Roberto


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] javascript/DOM resources

2005-06-29 Thread Chris Taylor
As mentioned in a thread last week (?) the DHTML Utopia book is well
worth a read, and kudos to the author and publisher for making it.
However you should also check out the unobtrusive javascript site at
http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/ (and the
others found at http://www.google.com/search?q=unobtrusive+javascript
are worth a look, too).

Seeing as there are now loads of tools being offered to simplify Ajax
development - Microsoft offered a new one today - it would be best for
us standardistas to get in on the act and make sure that things are done
properly before it gets too late. The last thing we want is for the
entire web community to start doing things the bad old way, it would be
like DHTML-Hell all over again...

Chris



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Denholm-Price
Sent: 29 June 2005 13:12
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] javascript/DOM resources

Hi Ted  [EMAIL PROTECTED],

Just trawling through list emails  this seems to have had no replies so
my 2p:

I'm sure I remember Jeremy Keith  (http://adactio.com/) proposing a
central archive of modern JS scripts but can't quite find it right now
... try starting from e.g.
http://adactio.com/journal/search.php?query=dom+scripting
(he told the @media audience that DOM Scripting is the way to throw
off the DHTML bad vibes...)

A few JS gurus met up after @media  PPK's site seems to be a good
starting point for ensuing discussion:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/you_shouldve_be_1.html

Googling for ajax dom scripting throws up loads, including:
http://www.andybudd.com/links/javascript_and_the_dom/index.php
and a mention of the Sitepoint book DHTML Utopia: Modern Web Design
Using JavaScript  DOM.

HTH,
  James

On 5/3/05, Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi All
 I'm in the middle of a site reconstruction. The backbone is ready, the

 style sheets are ready, what's next? The javascript. We are still 
 using a cookie script copyright 1996.
 
 I know there are tons of free javascript archives, but they are 
 equally filled with scripts that live in the old days of tag soup.
 
 Is there a resource for javascripts that are designed for 
 standards-compliant web sites. An archive of scripts that work with 
 DOM and degrade well in non-javascript enabled browsers?
 
 I would love to approach the scripting team and say, can we replace 
 this with this all-new javascript that will make our lives sooo much
better?
 
 Thanks
 
 
 
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread Drake, Ted C.
After reading this post, I began thinking that the solution may be to
seperate javascripts into basic and advanced sets. Just as we import
advanced style sheets to avoid confusing early browsers, perhaps we can set
an option to turn off advanced scripting. 

I could see the option acting much like a style sheet switcher that sets a
cookie disabling advance.js but allows basic.js to set cookies, etc. 

This would allow the screen-reading visitor to view my site better without
worrying about disabling functions in the next site by disabling javascript
globally. It also would allow us to provide core functions and disable the
layout based scripts.

Are there any JavaScript people on this list that could comment?

Ted



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Maarten Stolte
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:51 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

Hi,

thanks for the replies, I'm reading the three articles now, and they seem
very useful.

regards,

Maarten

-Original Message-
From: James Denholm-Price [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:21:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

Check out Derek Featherstone's follow-up to his talk at @media for
some interesting viewpoints:
http://www.boxofchocolates.ca/archives/2005/06/12/javascript-and-accessibili
ty#more-72

1. You probably always have to do the back end stuff anyway, even if
you can process lots of stuff that used to be back end on the client
using AJAX -- what if your most important visitor has JS disabled or
something (his firewall  mabe?) breaks AJAX?

2. Some screenreaders DO detect JS-driven changes to the DOM (e.g.
JAWS using IE) but I don't think it's definite what they see and what
they don't and as far as AJAX is concerned it's early days :-)

Just my 2p ... James

On 6/29/05, Maarten Stolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I'm trying to find out if there are any resources on AJAX and
accesibility.
 It seems to me that if I would employ AJAX technologies on my site to
enable a richer application experience, I would still need to code for
non-JavaScript useragents . I also think that with screenreaders, lots of
AJAX tricks would be hard to parse, even if such a reader would have
JavaScript.
 
 Do these things hold true, and are there other things that I need to take
into account?
 
 regards,
 
 Maarten Stolte
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: Re: [WSG] AJAX and accesibility

2005-06-29 Thread Derek Featherstone
On 6/29/05, Drake, Ted C.  wrote:

re:
http://www.boxofchocolates.ca/archives/2005/06/12/javascript-and-
accessibility
 
After reading this post, I began thinking that the solution may be to
seperate javascripts into basic and advanced sets. Just as we import
advanced style sheets to avoid confusing early browsers, perhaps we
can set an option to turn off advanced scripting. 

snip /

Are there any JavaScript people on this list that could comment?

As both a JavaScript and an accessibility person, I'll step in for a
moment.  We (the WaSP Accessibility Task Force) will be looking at all
possibilities in depth to determine what kind of scripting and
techniques are to be considered safe to be used with screen readers
and other assistive technology (we need best practices for dealing with
screen magnifiers as well, and need a better understanding of the
implications of AJAX type techniques for that group of people)

In principle, I don't see anything wrong with a layered approach to
JavaScript, much in the same way we layer style sheets. Once we better
understand the finer points of the interaction between JavaScript and
screen readers (for example), we could in theory determine which things
will be safe, and then allow a preferences page to turn off specific
portions of the JavaScript.

I like your idea of allowing the user to turn off and on portions of the
JavaScript via preferences - I don't usually advocate this approach on
its own, but in this case, though, it is likely that if they disable JS
completely, other sites will stop working as expected. Yes, I know - too
bad for the other sites because it is their own fault in the first
place. Erring on the side of caution though, a scripting preferences
might be useful and less likely to cause other problems.

There are a couple of tricky points that we'd need to sort out -
directing people to preferences to make the change, ensuring that it is
well explained without being too techie, and to avoid having too many
options - in my opinion, it needs to be limited to all scripting,
core only, and no scripting options - otherwise it gets too difficult
to understand.

Hope this helps - there are parts I'm being deliberately vague about as
the Task Force is only just getting started and we have a lot of work to
do... Please be reassured that we are looking at this very seriously
with a very talented group of people, and hopefully we'll be making some
good progress soon.

Best regards,
Derek.
-- 
Derek Featherstone   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 613-599-9784  1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America)
Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com
Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread Erwin Heiser
Hi all,

So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on uses a
few flash elements (like a slideshow).
I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on Flash-Satay
I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a page so
that it still validates.
Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
(I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional)
Thanks in advance,
Erwin Heiser


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread Tatham Oddie
Erwin,

What's wrong with satay? Why do you need something else?



Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea
www.fueladvance.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Erwin Heiser
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2005 3:16 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

Hi all,

So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on uses a
few flash elements (like a slideshow).
I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on Flash-Satay
I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a page so
that it still validates.
Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
(I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional)
Thanks in advance,
Erwin Heiser


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread INFOPRE
You can use satay method

http://alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

cheers

Daniele
http://www.gizax.it
Gizax Studios, Internet Accessibility




- Original Message -
From: Erwin Heiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:16 PM
Subject: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML


Hi all,

So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on uses a
few flash elements (like a slideshow).
I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on Flash-Satay
I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a page so
that it still validates.
Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
(I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional)
Thanks in advance,
Erwin Heiser


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread Chris Van Wiemeersch
Erwin,

You may want to read the discussion on Dream McLellan's site (author of
the ALA Flash Satay article) on Flash in XHTML --
http://allinthehead.com/retro/234/embedding-macromedia-flash-in-xhtml

See http://www.ambience.sk/flash-valid.htm for a different method than
Flash Satay in which no container movie is necessary for the page to
validate.

---
Chris Van Wiemeersch
Dekko Studios

P.O. Box 298
Novi, Michigan 48376
United States

T 248 982 6323
F 248 380 6405
http://www.dekkostudios.com/

 Hi all,

 So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on uses a
 few flash elements (like a slideshow).
 I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on
 Flash-Satay
 I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a page
so that it still validates.
 Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
 (I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional) Thanks
in advance,
 Erwin Heiser


 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **






**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread designer

Hi Erwin,

I always use a method suggested to me by Bert Doorn which so far has 
worked fine:


object data=opening.swf width=550 height=377 
type=application/x-shockwave-flash

   param name=movie value=opening.swf /
   param name=quality value=high /
   param name=bgcolor value=#fff /
   img src=graphics/openingflashimage.gif alt= /
 /object

you'll note that you can put a graphic there for those who don't want 
Flash, or indeed you can include a link/prompt to download the player.


I like it because it's so simple, AND it validates xhtml strict.

Hope this helps . . .

Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)


Erwin Heiser wrote:


Hi all,

So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on uses a
few flash elements (like a slideshow).
I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on Flash-Satay
I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a page so
that it still validates.
Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
(I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional)
Thanks in advance,
Erwin Heiser


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**




 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread Hope Stewart
I have a page containing this code:

object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=images/hmpg/hmpg.swf
width=722 height=80
param name=movie value=images/hmpg/hmpg.swf /
/object

It validates as xhtml 1.0 Transitional.

My question, however, is how do I make it accessible? What is the Flash
equivalent to the alt attribute?

Hope Stewart

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread sam sherlock

Hi All,

I have been using flashObject for some time now

I have heard that satay does not display the object until the movie is 
loaded
also I have found it to be quite hard to work with, and flash object is 
soo simple


I strated a thread a while ago asking if anyone knew of / could find any 
draw backs of the flashObject method

no body had a bad word to say about it (the thread followed another tangent)

www.makepovertyhistory.org - is using flashObject below is an snippet of 
mark up from the site I have added comments



!-- a container with alternative content --

div id=flashcontenta href=#Come to Edinburgh - Click here to find out 
more./a/div
script type=text/javascript
// ![CDATA[
// make a new flash object - path to swf, id of container, with 
of movie, height of movie, version of flash, background colour
var fo = new FlashObject(/flash/feature-homepage2.swf, feature, 550, 
133, 7, #ff);
// a number of options can be added to the object here such as 
params
// wmode can also be added - its really neat
fo.write(flashcontent);

// ]]
/script


http://blog.deconcept.com/2005/03/31/proper-flash-embedding-flashobject-best-practices/

for all the dreamweaverers out there you can get a widget plugin for 
FlashObject


what do you peeps think of this method?

keen to hear response  Sam



designer wrote:


Hi Erwin,

I always use a method suggested to me by Bert Doorn which so far has 
worked fine:


object data=opening.swf width=550 height=377 
type=application/x-shockwave-flash

   param name=movie value=opening.swf /
   param name=quality value=high /
   param name=bgcolor value=#fff /
   img src=graphics/openingflashimage.gif alt= /
 /object

you'll note that you can put a graphic there for those who don't want 
Flash, or indeed you can include a link/prompt to download the player.


I like it because it's so simple, AND it validates xhtml strict.

Hope this helps . . .

Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)


Erwin Heiser wrote:


Hi all,

So far I¹ve been able to avoid using Flash but a site I¹m working on 
uses a

few flash elements (like a slideshow).
I¹ve been googling around but besides the alistapart article on 
Flash-Satay
I¹ve not been able to find another method of embedding flash in a 
page so

that it still validates.
Does anyone with more flash experience have any suggestions?
(I'd like the pages to validate to XHTML Strict or Transitional)
Thanks in advance,
Erwin Heiser


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**




 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Kay Smoljak
We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only
version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that
that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an
accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain
that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right
words.

Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out?
Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic.

Thanks!

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] Case of the amazing disappearing wrapper!

2005-06-29 Thread jackie reid



Hi List

I dont understand whats going on here at 
all.

http://www.fxenterprises.com.au/index.htm

the white wrapper div is just not containing the 
content. Or rather sometimes it is and sometimes its not.

when you first go into the site the wrapper doesnt 
stretch, if you use the navigation and move to another page it seems ok. but 
when you refresh the screen whompa... its the amazing disappearing wrapper thing 
again.

Please shed light on the subject if you 
can.

Thanks again list.

Jackie



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Richard Czeiger

Cheat!

Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based stylesheet 
:o)


Richard


- Original Message - 
From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is 
bad



We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only
version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that
that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an
accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain
that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right
words.

Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out?
Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic.

Thanks!

--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Kay Smoljak
On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based stylesheet

We *could* do that... but I'd rather educate the client :)

To answer my own question, soon after posting (isn't that always the
way) I found this very good article on Webcredible:
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/text-only.shtml

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Jeff Lowder - Accessibility 1st
Good article: 
http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2005/01/server-side-accessibility

Cheers

Jeff Lowder
Accessibility 1st
Ph: 02 9570 9875 | Mobile: 0419 350 760
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Website:
http://www.accessibility1st.com.au




 From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:55:11 +0800
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
 
 We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only
 version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that
 that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an
 accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain
 that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right
 words.
 
 Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out?
 Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic.
 
 Thanks!
 
 -- 
 Kay Smoljak
 http://kay.smoljak.com/
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Case of the amazing disappearing wrapper!

2005-06-29 Thread Zachary Hopkins

I've had this problem before.

It involves a 0-height object not clearing.  There needs to some
dimension to an object that clears another.
I've uploaded a copy to my site for you to check out.

I've modified the page to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict, given your doctype.

The changes are commented, but I've changed the clearing object to be a
div and I've given it some dimension.
Changed CSS: .clear{ clear: both;height:1px;}

http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/wsg_fx_ent/index.htm

Hope it helps!

--Zachary

jackie reid wrote:


Hi List
 
I dont understand whats going on here at all.
 
http://www.fxenterprises.com.au/index.htm
 
the white wrapper div is just not containing the content. Or rather 
sometimes it is and sometimes its not.
 
when you first go into the site the wrapper doesnt stretch, if you use 
the navigation and move to another page it seems ok. but when you 
refresh the screen whompa... its the amazing disappearing wrapper 
thing again.
 
Please shed light on the subject if you can.
 
Thanks again list.
 
Jackie
 



--

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. 


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Richard Czeiger

Good article, Kay!

I'd try sending them there, but in the end it's a matter of balancing some 
of the following things:


1. spending time educating the client
2. maintaining an acceesible approach to design
3. Runing a business

If after trying to educate the client (a 10 minute phone conversation you're 
NOT going to get paid for), and they still want a text only page just 
because we think it's best, then cave in...
But cave in your way - make a 'text-only' looking stylesheet and charge them 
for the work!

You maintain standards and accessibility as well as get paid!

Alternatively make a text-only copy of the whoel site and charge them double 
as it's twice the work than the original scope.

...


I'm just at the point of screaming when it comes to corporate clients who 
'know best' about things and insist on doing it their way.
Fine - i'll explain the pros and cons and give my professional, experienced 
and informed opinion.
If they throw it in the bin and ask me to do anything extra, then they can 
pay for it.


I'll bet good money that if you tell them it's going to be an extra $2500 
for a text-only version, or $250 to whip up a styleswitcher and CSS file 
then they'll go for the cheap option every single time. In this case, it 
happens to co-incide with an accessible approach.


Just my *somewhat frazzled at End of Financial Year* two cents..

:o)

R

- Original Message - 
From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only 
is bad



On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based 
stylesheet


We *could* do that... but I'd rather educate the client :)

To answer my own question, soon after posting (isn't that always the
way) I found this very good article on Webcredible:
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/text-only.shtml

--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Jan Brasna
Kay, I'll try to summarize a paragraph on this topic from one Czech 
accessibility book:


- having a page containing only text still doesn't implicate it's 
accessibile
- using text version often leads to forgetting all the rules of good web 
on the main site and placing more barriers there
- if the main site is not accessible, it is hard to find a link to the 
text-olny version
- paralell version may simplify the issue to an idea that accessible = 
for blind visitors, which isn't true and leeds to constraining other 
visitors who may use the accessible site
- the need of a separate maintenance of the text-only version often ends 
in not-so-accurate content and makes it worthless.


--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] Case of the amazing disappearing wrapper!

2005-06-29 Thread Adam Burmister \(DSL AK\)
Ditto on that one.

It's odd, but that's the way it is.

- Adam

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zachary Hopkins
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2005 2:25 p.m.
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Case of the amazing disappearing wrapper!

I've had this problem before.

It involves a 0-height object not clearing.  There needs to some
dimension to an object that clears another.
I've uploaded a copy to my site for you to check out.

I've modified the page to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict, given your doctype.

The changes are commented, but I've changed the clearing object to be a
div and I've given it some dimension.
Changed CSS: .clear{ clear: both;height:1px;}

http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/wsg_fx_ent/index.htm

Hope it helps!

--Zachary

jackie reid wrote:

 Hi List
  
 I dont understand whats going on here at all.
  
 http://www.fxenterprises.com.au/index.htm
  
 the white wrapper div is just not containing the content. Or rather 
 sometimes it is and sometimes its not.
  
 when you first go into the site the wrapper doesnt stretch, if you use

 the navigation and move to another page it seems ok. but when you 
 refresh the screen whompa... its the amazing disappearing wrapper 
 thing again.
  
 Please shed light on the subject if you can.
  
 Thanks again list.
  
 Jackie
  


-- 

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. 

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Kay Smoljak
On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 If after trying to educate the client (a 10 minute phone conversation you're
 NOT going to get paid for), and they still want a text only page just
 because we think it's best, then cave in...

Actually, in this case the client has had someone write the tender for
them - they quite freely admit that they know nothing and are looking
for guidance. But I know your pain, we have lots of we know best
clients too :)

Thanks Jan too - that's a pretty concise summary.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread heretic
 We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only
 version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that
 that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an
 accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain
 that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right
 words.
 Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out?
 Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic.

There's nothing inherently wrong with providing a text only
alternative (if there was, we'd have to outlaw alternative stylesheets
too). The problem generally comes from that version missing content or
getting out of date; plus the human problem of getting lazy on the
default site thinking the text site will bail you out.

Text sites are ok if they are generated automatically (so they don't
get out of date) and the original site doesn't bury everything in
Flash or something. In the long run, alternative stylesheets should
replace them.

If you can't auto-generate the text site, then you can probably defeat
the idea based on doubling maintenance costs for the entire life of
the site. The ROI on a compliant site with graceful degradation should
come out to be far higher than trying to maintain the entire site
twice over.

I'm not sure that I've seen much online on the topic, though. So I
guess this didn't really help, sorry :(

h

-- 
--- http://www.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not 
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread Bert Doorn

G'day


I'm not sure that I've seen much online on the topic, though. So I
guess this didn't really help, sorry :(


http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-alt-pages

11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible 
page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C 
technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or 
functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible 
(original) page. [Priority 1] 


Note: Content developers should only resort to alternative pages 
when other solutions fail...


...Before resorting to an alternative page, reconsider the 
design of the original page; making it accessible is likely to 
improve it for all users.


...Last resort...

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread INFOPRE
Hi Hope,

if browser doens't have plug-ing, you can insert a tag image 
with alt attribute that describe use of flash in your site.

If you are interested to create an accessibile  flash site,
this is for you http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/

cheers

Daniele
http://www.gizax.it/
Gizax Studios, Internet Accessibility



- Original Message - 
From: Hope Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML


 I have a page containing this code:
 
 object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=images/hmpg/hmpg.swf
 width=722 height=80
 param name=movie value=images/hmpg/hmpg.swf /
 /object
 
 It validates as xhtml 1.0 Transitional.
 
 My question, however, is how do I make it accessible? What is the Flash
 equivalent to the alt attribute?
 
 Hope Stewart
 
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **
 
 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] Flash and valid XHTML

2005-06-29 Thread Hope Stewart
Thanks Daniele. I'll give it a go.

On 30/6/05 3:19 PM, INFOPRE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 if browser doens't have plug-ing, you can insert a tag image
 with alt attribute that describe use of flash in your site.
 
 If you are interested to create an accessibile  flash site,
 this is for you http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/
 
 cheers
 
 Daniele
 http://www.gizax.it/
 Gizax Studios, Internet Accessibility

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**