> At lot of work went into the Telstra standards, it's a shame they never
> utilised the knowledge within Rob Pedlow's Research team, because those
> set of standards, that have been in use for almost half a decade, are
> full of holes and misunderstandings.
>
The latest standards were published i
Graham Cook wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
Mandatory data fields, Required data, fields that require correct data
after validation should all be grouped together with a
*fieldset>legend*. This informs all users of the requirements of that
data. Leave fields that do not meet this criteria outside
Terrence Wood wrote:
Philippe Wittenbergh said:
This makes kind of good argument for *not* styling form inputs at all,
and leave it to the OS. On most of my OS X browsers, disabled form
fields are not really greyed out, but rather use opacity reduction to
indicate read-only.
A quick t
Lloyd wrote:
> I only recently joined this list. According to the web site there are
> quite a few people based in Perth so I was interested to hear if there
> are any plans for meetups in the future?
Hi Lloyd,
Welcome to the list. :-)
There is a Perth WSG but it will probably be in the New Yea
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
This makes kind of good argument for *not* styling form inputs at all,
and leave it to the OS. On most of my OS X browsers, disabled form
fields are not really greyed out, but rather use opacity reduction to
indicate read-only.
Philippe
---
I agree with this
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
I think it is quite simple, don't use any scale of grey at all. Grey
is reserved for meaning *read only*.
With all due respect, that sounds a tad too draconian for my
tastes...and it's exactly the kind of talk that will make web
*designers* si
Hi Guys,
I only recently joined this list. According to the web site there are
quite a few people based in Perth so I was interested to hear if there
are any plans for meetups in the future?
Lloyd
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsg
> Geoff Deering wrote:
>
> Mandatory data fields, Required data, fields that require correct data
> after validation should all be grouped together with a
> *fieldset>legend*. This informs all users of the requirements of that
> data. Leave fields that do not meet this criteria outside this grou
Philippe Wittenbergh said:
> This makes kind of good argument for *not* styling form inputs at all,
> and leave it to the OS. On most of my OS X browsers, disabled form
> fields are not really greyed out, but rather use opacity reduction to
> indicate read-only.
A quick test of unstyled input type
Derek Featherstone wrote:
Agreed. Putting them after *visually* and leaving them before in source
order, and as part of the label can be really useful - its semantically
meaningful, can be emphasized (using ) as
shown in the second example on that page is useful. You could easily use
the
Patrick H. Lauke said:
>> I think it is quite simple, don't use any scale of grey at all. Grey is
>> reserved for meaning *read only*.
>
> With all due respect, that sounds a tad too draconian for my
> tastes...It needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Ah, well, if you (royal you) really
On 14 Nov 2005, at 12:22 pm, Geoff Deering wrote:
*Another* thing I see that is happening in design a lot lately is
that input fields are in greyed background by design, not function.
What this is telling the user is that that field is *read only*.
That is the standard way operating systems
Patrick H. Lauke said:
> IE does not natively support 24 bit alpha transparency on PNGs without
> some seriously hacky workarounds.
...which is to say that IE *does* support 8-bit transparency (i.e. same as
gif).
The other gotcha you need to watch out for is the gamma correction applied
by differ
Hi
I've had fairly good results using PNGs, however IE on Windows does
not support transparency in PNGs and usually replaces it with a grey
filler colour. A situation at work meant I simply had to use some
PNGs with transparency, and make them work in IE, which lead me to
PieNG (http://ww
Geoff Deering wrote:
I think it is quite simple, don't use any scale of grey at all. Grey is
reserved for meaning *read only*.
With all due respect, that sounds a tad too draconian for my
tastes...and it's exactly the kind of talk that will make web
*designers* simply stop listening to anyt
Additionally: you may be best off using a fallback mechanism, so that
browsers which are not capable of displaying 24 bit PNGs can still get
*something*. An idea (by no means the best around) is my little
experiment in PNG image replacement
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/19/
--
Patri
On 11/14/05, Geoff Deering wrote:
>Mandatory data fields, Required data, fields that require correct data
>after validation should all be grouped together with a
>*fieldset>legend*. This informs all users of the requirements of that
>data.
Indeed - one of my favourite techniques:
http://sim
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
*Another* thing I see that is happening in design a lot lately is
that input fields are in greyed background by design, not function.
What this is telling the user is that that field is *read only*.
That is the standard way operating systems man
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
I have a design that will require those nice transparency effects only a
.png can provide if I want it to be just like the mockup. Do most
browsers support that yet, or do I have to go with the gif that has been
carefully shaved?
IE does not natively support 24 bi
Only supported in IE 6 with a hack, kind of an ugly one too as it
renders the PNG's transparent area with a mid gray until it has finished
loading, I guess if it's on a small image it's ok.
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
Greetings all,
I wanted to see what people's comments were as to using .png
Geoff Deering wrote:
*Another* thing I see that is happening in design a lot lately is that
input fields are in greyed background by design, not function. What
this is telling the user is that that field is *read only*. That is the
standard way operating systems manage read only data, and th
Greetings all,
I wanted to see what people's comments were as to using .png's vs. .gifs
these days.
I have a design that will require those nice transparency effects only a
.png can provide if I want it to be just like the mockup. Do most
browsers support that yet, or do I have to go with t
G'day
I would have thought that you would want to make your scripts check for
leading _and trailing_ spaces. Mouse users will often click into the
start of a field. When they enter text, they will end up with a
trailing space.
Although I tend to click somewhere in the middle (rather than d
Bert Doorn wrote:
Geoff, I know exactly what you mean with the greyed out fields. Came
across it myself only yesterday - a form where all inputs had a grey
background. It wasn't until I clicked in one of them that I realised
the field was not disabled.
Yes, someone please, who writes for s
Derek Featherstone wrote:
On 11/14/05, Geoff Deering wrote:
Why can't the braille software detect an empty form element and inform
the user it requires data? Is this an authoring tool problem or a
problem with the way standards are prescribed?
Agreed, Geoff. We really do need to kno
On 14/11/2005, at 1:02 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
...
I might settle on adding value=" " (space) - shouldn't be hard to
change my scripts to strip leading spaces when checking if a field has
been completed.
...
Hi Bert
I would have thought that you would want to make your scripts check for
lea
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
Yes this is an interesting point. And it differs from visually highlighting
a field once the user has encountered a form validation error. For example,
a user misses or incorrectly fills out a mandatory field and when the form
is re-presented, those fields are visually highli
G'day
Thanks for all the replies, you've confirmed my suspicions. It's
unfortunate that online accessibility/quality checking tools
still insist on this (especially when you have a client who likes
to see a mass of ticks with every tool you throw at his site).
I have the same concerns others
On 11/14/05, Geoff Deering wrote:
>Why can't the braille software detect an empty form element and inform
>the user it requires data? Is this an authoring tool problem or a
>problem with the way standards are prescribed?
Agreed, Geoff. We really do need to know more. We'll need to add this to
th
Yes this is an interesting point. And it differs from visually highlighting
a field once the user has encountered a form validation error. For example,
a user misses or incorrectly fills out a mandatory field and when the form
is re-presented, those fields are visually highlighted with a background
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
I ran a usability evaluation last week where some (few) of the form elements
had place-holding text and others didn't.
This caused problems as you might expect as users scanned over those fields
thinking that as they were already populated, they were therefore optional.
Of c
Jonathan O'Donnell wrote:
Leaving it there can be a problem. I have seen a demonstration (at a
Melbourne WSG meeting, no less) where the agent placed the cursor at
the end of the place-holding text without reading it. There is a real
danger that the user will enter text without knowing tha
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Bert Doorn wrote:
Is it really necessary for accessibility to "include default
place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas" per WCAG 1.0
Checkpoint 10.4? Is that an obsolete guideline?
Personally, I'd say it is an obsolete guideline indeed. However, I
re
Lea de Groot wrote:
I am reliably informed we have reached that point and that including
default text now causes more problems than it solves.
However I do not have many references to back this up -
Possibly worth adding to this empirical evidence: I spoke to Shawn
Lawton Henry of the W3C'
I ran a usability evaluation last week where some (few) of the form elements
had place-holding text and others didn't.
This caused problems as you might expect as users scanned over those fields
thinking that as they were already populated, they were therefore optional.
Of course they were mandat
On 14/11/2005, at 11:31 AM, Bert Doorn wrote:
Is it really necessary for accessibility to "include default
place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas" per WCAG 1.0
Checkpoint 10.4? Is that an obsolete guideline?
...
Have we reached (or largely reached) the "until user agents" sta
Bert Doorn wrote:
Is it really necessary for accessibility to "include default
place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas" per WCAG 1.0
Checkpoint 10.4? Is that an obsolete guideline?
Personally, I'd say it is an obsolete guideline indeed. However, I
recently heard on the WAI IG l
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:31:21 +0800, Bert Doorn wrote:
> Have we reached (or largely reached) the "until user agents" stage
> yet? What implications is ignoring this guideline likely to have
> (other than not getting "tick marks" from various automated tools),
> given I use properly coded labels
Is it really necessary for accessibility to "include default
place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas" per WCAG 1.0
Checkpoint 10.4? Is that an obsolete guideline?
10.4 *Until user agents* handle empty controls correctly, include
default, place-holding characters in edit boxes an
If you want to appeal to their emotions you may want to have them try
this demo site http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/website1.asp
Its no video but gives them a damn good idea of what its like. At the
left are the online demos and at the bottom left is a SR demo.
Joseph Lindsay wrote:
Does anyb
Hi Joseph,These are really great videos from the University of Wisconsin.http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/video/I have shown these in a lot of classes and presentations.Sincerely,Justin ThorpOn Nov 13, 2005, at 5:04 PM, Joseph Lindsay wrote:Does anybody have, or know of any video of users on
I managed to convince mine by suggesting our organsiation's website as an
example site during the screen reading element of an accessibility
conference. She was present...and far less amused than I. ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joseph
Does anybody have, or know of any video of users on the Internet with
a screen reader?
While managers listen to the arguments about accessibility, I would
like to appeal to their emotions as well. It is much easier to
empathise with a person, than facts and figures.
**
Have you checked that you have the pseudo classes in the right order in
the CSS?
See http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_pseudo_classes.asp
Grant
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:18:18 +1030, Tim Burgan wrote:
> Do you have any suggestions as to how to overcome this?
**
44 matches
Mail list logo
