Kit,
Seems like you answered your own question there.
The only added benefit of putting the script in the header of every
page, is that for the first time the script is downloaded, every
subsequent page load will not require the same download again, even
your Javascript reliant page.
If you are
G'day all,
I've had some internal debate about this topic, so I thought I'd put
it to the list:
Imagine a large (300 dynamic pages+) site with a real client focus on
speed. An average user is expected to visit around 5% of the site per
visit (~15 pages), and the user is expected to visit
Christie Mason wrote:
Katrina Replies
- Christie responds -
My soul cringed when I read "legislating against very bad manners" It can't
be done, it shouldn't be attempted.
Think about it: what is vandalism if not bad manners? Vandalism is
unauthorized marking of property, regardless if that
Tee G. Peng wrote:
I want to build accessible sites because that is the right thing to
do and I have pride in what I do.
Pride may be a costly commodity in more than one way. It sure beats
money as driving-force for real growth though.
Sometimes I do wonder, are some people (including me) in
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote:
There's plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for
cheap. Always will be.
If I may add, there are plenty of people all around me that build
crap sites for $$$ and I had worked with a few of them -
my insistence on build
Steve Green wrote:
The complexity and cost of accessible design increase significantly
when the content is more complex, such as very large forms (we have
discussed a few real examples in this list), multimedia and
interactive e-learning (especially when it is discovery-based rather
than task
Designer wrote:
Andrew Maben wrote:
But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not*
find it quicker and easier (and hence cheaper) to write than tag soup?
Recently, his son got involved and mailed me to say that a friend of
his was doing it for nothing and he could do it ver
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Designer wrote:
Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk.
yes, I'm afraid you're right...
I've been hand-coding since the day I found Pagemill (remember
Pagemill?!?) wouldn't do what I wanted. And there's certainly a
learning curve involve
Andrew Maben wrote:
But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not* find
it quicker and easier (and hence cheaper) to write than tag soup?
Andrew, lots of folk do find it harder. The fact is that the transition
to standards and accessibility isn't 'easy' when you are lear
What you say is true up to a point, but really only applies to trivial
content such as plain text, images and simple forms. I suspect that these
are the sort of sites people have in mind when they say accessibility is
easy and doesn't cost anything.
The complexity and cost of accessible design inc
"As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't
consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers,
screenreaders and google."
Steve Green wrote:
That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible
websites. You aren't.
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:30 PM
>To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
>
>> And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !?
>
>Guidelin
It is, but compliance with the WCAG doesn't automatically guarantee an
accessible site, so my statement stands. To build websites that are truly
accessible it is necessary to understand how people perceive the content and
interact with it. The WCAG are a good start but they only get you so far.
St
I've had more success in presenting standards compliance and accessibility
issues as usability issues. Is the site usable for people that are color
blind, wear bifocals, have different navigation preferences, have limited
use of hands, etc? Then it becomes a discussion about which options to
impl
Gary Barber wrote:
Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You
ask "do you want a good quality web site". The clients replies,
"quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care".
So the client says "Why should I use you with your standards and
accessibi
> And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !?
Guideline, not standard.
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise & Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK
T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL PROTE
Well, there is also some discussion of liability issues for
architects who design non-ada compliant sites. Check this out:
http://hansonbridgett.com/newsletters/ConstructionAlert/
CAlert080801.html
the last paragraph is key:
While designers are not directly liable under lawsuits for the
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:01 PM
>To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
>
>Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an
>accessible site ...
Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible
site and there's every chance that valid, semantic markup could be
just as or even more inaccessible than a site using tables for layout
and inline styles so I do agree and that wasn't the point I was
personally trying to put across
> My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping
> centre client: "do you want wheelchair access?"
The difference in that scenario is that the client would generally not
expect the architect to skip the ramps and lower their fees since
"it's only a few people" (although I'
"The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero."
Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am
dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal
accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part.
"As a designer/develo
>From the tone of the many comments on this topic it appears there are a lot
of people commenting who haven't been internal in a large company and expect
that outsiders saying "should" will work to change internal organizational
perceptions and direction. It won't.
Most people don't do something
Gary Barber wrote:
You ask "do you want a good quality web site". The clients replies,
"quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care".
Here in lies the problem.
That shouldn't be seen as a problem.
For me at least it takes longer, and cost more, to create a site
consisting of
Hi,
So I fixed the problem by specifying...
document.onkeydown = handleKeyPress;
...rather than inline in the bodytag as before...and now IE and
Firefox both work and both validate.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>
Keypress testing 14.
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
as in the long run, they'll ALWAYS be more trouble than they're worth
Yep. An old truism: "the less they pay, the more they want".
But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not*
find it quicker and easier (and hence cheap
> Gary Barber
> Why bother taking the time to make something that is good
> quality when
> at the end of the day the client just wants cheap and functional and
> looks nice.
Professionalism?
> So the client says "Why should I use you with your standards and
> accessibility, Cowboy Design
> On 10/8/07, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
> >
> >
> > The following HTML works (in QUIRKS) for both IE and
> > Firefox...alertING "Key Pressed!"...erm...when a key is pressed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Quoting Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
Works fine for me (IE7 and IE6) with and without DOCTYPE. Are you
running it locally, and if so did you ignore the IE warning about
scripting/activeX ?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___
Im at college at the moment, i tryed it with and without the doctype and it
worked fine. They are using IE6, i cant test on IE7 until i get home.
If everything is valid i cant see there being a problem, but there obviously
it.
Regrads
James
On 10/8/07, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You ask
"do you want a good quality web site". The clients replies, "quality
means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care".
Here in lies the problem. It can be the worst tag soup inaccessible non
standards nightmare, a
Hi,
Adding DOCTYPE stops page functioning with IE!
The following HTML works (in QUIRKS) for both IE and
Firefox...alertING "Key Pressed!"...erm...when a key is pressed.
Keypress testing.
Hi,
I found a cross-browser (IE and Firefox) method on www.javaranch.com
(which is down at the moment).
1) Dispense with onkeydown in body and use document.onkeydown instead.
2) Then in the key-handling script...declare evt as a parameter.
3) Then populate nbr with event.keyCode if window.event
Your penis is as hard to find as an itty bitty needle. With Penis Enlarge Patch
it will be shown even from the distance.
http://www.koppalt.com/?wluhmnlbd
Turn your penis from a peasant to a Nobel.
bring down a subject with it at the present German range --
Hi Simom,
change your code as follows:
HTML:
JAVASCRIPT:
function setCmdKeyIE(event) {
if(event==null) event = window.event;
var cmdkeycode = "";
if (event.keyCode != 13 & event.keyCode != 33 &
event.keyCode != 34 & event.keyCode < 112 ) return;
...
}
I solved as described f
Hi, check the following to get the answer:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Migrate_apps_from_Internet_Explorer_to_Mozilla#Event_differences
Max.
2007/10/8, Simon Cockayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> window.event.keycode works for IE to capture key input, not for Firefox.
>
> Firefox thr
One of the first requirements of accessibility is use a doctype with valid
code. Their site is full of coding errors and I can't believe that it has
been created by any web designer (possibly a graphic designer? ;-).
As you suggest, it could well be that they are using "some kind of monster
CMS w
Hi,
window.event.keycode works for IE to capture key input, not for Firefox.
Firefox throws an error "window.event has no properties".
Sowhat code can be used for both?
*** My HTML snippet:
...
*** My Javascript snippet:
function setCmdKeyIE() {
var cmdkeycode = "";
if (window
Completely agree with most of the comments. Accessibility ensures that
the site is usable, not just for disabled users but for ALL your
users.
It should come at no extra cost and only if the designer goes out of
their way to deliver an inaccessible site does it become a problem.
Adding alt attribu
38 matches
Mail list logo
