Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. 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. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. 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. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** 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: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I'm glad to hear that so many of us are experts on law and other topics that have nothing to do with web standards whatsoever. What does this suit have to do with web standards? Well, perhaps down the road somewhere more strict governing will be put in place. Do we want the government involved with web page construction? No. Maybe this is an opportunity to point out the exact failure in the site, offer a fix, and then go through our own commerce sites to make sure we don't have any similar problems. Maybe the more entrepreneurial of us will spam store owners offering shopping cart repair services. Maybe, just maybe this will get thrown out of court and quickly forgotten. Maybe, target will fess up to being an evil corporation and explain the whole problem was the inability of the English speaking executives to clearly explain the problem to the developers in China that earn $0.15 an hour working on the site, reminding us why to hire local people. Hopefully something positive will come from it. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping centre client: do you want wheelchair access? Elizabeth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Pack Sent: Monday, 8 October 2007 3:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. The response ranges from What is accessibility? to we'll worry about that later to No! Why bother asking? You don't need you clients' permission to build a site properly. Geoff. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. The response ranges from What is accessibility? to we'll worry about that later to No! So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards? Ouch. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 attributes, using semantic HTML, ensuring that JavaScript isn't used for critical functionality etc shouldn't be nice to have's for the client, they should be built in as standard by any reputable web designer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. The response ranges from What is accessibility? to we'll worry about that later to No! So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards? Ouch. *** 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] window.event.keycode works for IE, not for firefox
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: body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE(); ... /body *** My Javascript snippet: function setCmdKeyIE() { var cmdkeycode = ; if (window.event.keyCode != 13 window.event.keyCode != 33 window.event.keyCode != 34 window.event.keyCode 112 ) return; ... } Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Why DON'T you-know-who just fix the site?
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 which their current staff are unable to make changes to. That said, they should be prosecuted just for their response alone (to the requests to amend their site),i.e. Target is committed to serving all of our guests and we believe that our Web site is fully accessible and complies with all applicable laws, Stuart -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 On Mon, October 8, 2007 2:09 am, John Horner wrote: Let's say there's a big store called, er, Tegrat. They have complaints about their website not being accessible, which have gone on for some time and are now the subject of legal action. We, the people on this list, know that it's not technically difficult, and shouldn't be time-consuming or expensive. Does anyone have any idea why don't they just ... fix the problem? * Are they holding out some kind of right-wing, government shouldn't interfere, ever, in anything philosophy? * Have they subcontracted the website to a third party with whom they're on bad terms? * Have they got some kind of monster CMS which their current staff are unable to make changes to? * Do they somehow believe, mistakenly, that it will cost millions? No matter whether you *believe* legislation should force businesses to fix the site, businesses normally like to appear well-meaning and helpful and compliant with such issues and interest groups, because they're so concerned with their public image. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** 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] window.event.keycode works for IE, not for firefox
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 throws an error window.event has no properties. Sowhat code can be used for both? *** My HTML snippet: body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE(); ... /body *** My Javascript snippet: function setCmdKeyIE() { var cmdkeycode = ; if (window.event.keyCode != 13 window.event.keyCode != 33 window.event.keyCode != 34 window.event.keyCode 112 ) return; ... } Cheers, Simon *** 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] window.event.keycode works for IE, not for firefox
Hi Simom, change your code as follows: HTML: body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE(event); 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 for all my web apps. Best regards. On 08/10/2007, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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: body onKeyDown=setCmdKeyIE(); ... /body *** My Javascript snippet: function setCmdKeyIE() { var cmdkeycode = ; if (window.event.keyCode != 13 window.event.keyCode != 33 window.event.keyCode != 34 window.event.keyCode 112 ) return; ... } Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified (transcript ID # 6653550) for: RDBMS Concepts; HTML 4.0 W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] RE:
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 -- you only cripple German novel -- which a slight parenthesis in it. I will make a perfectlyliteral translation, and throw in the parenthesis-marks and some hyphens for *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: window.event.keycode works for IE, not for firefox
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 is not false (which it is in Firefox) OTHERWISE use evt.which. Hey presto keypresses can be caught in IE and Firefox. But is this a standards acceptable way of doing it? HTML script function handleKeyPress(evt) { var nbr; var nbr = (window.event)?event.keyCode:evt.which; alert(nbr); return true; } document.onkeydown= handleKeyPress; /script BODY pKeypress7/p /BODY /HTML Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] DOCTYPE prevents script processing in IE!
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. html lang=en-US head title Keypress testing. /title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=utf-8 script type=text/javascript function handleKeyPress(evt) { alert(Key pressed!) } /script /head body onkeydown=handleKeyPress(event); pPress a key!/p /body /html However, adding... !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd; ...before the HTML...makes the Firefox page valid AND it still works ok. Whereas the IE page, though also now valid, but no alert appears upon key press! What's the story? Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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, and it will look good (in all browsers), client doesn't have people with disabilities (that they know of) as customers. So its all sweet. Right? 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. You and I scream, SEO, 1 in 5 people with a disability, future proofing etc.. But still the client says, ranks okay in Google for me. They are willing a pay again for a make over in total in few years, Isn't that the way. In few years it will all be different so it will cost me the same again, I can't see a cost saving, they say. So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Thats the true cost of Accessibility. -- Gary Barber Blog: manwithnoblog.com Twitter: twitter.com/tuna Christian Snodgrass wrote: I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. 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. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** 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] DOCTYPE prevents script processing in IE!
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: 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. html lang=en-US head title Keypress testing. /title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=utf-8 script type=text/javascript function handleKeyPress(evt) { alert(Key pressed!) } /script /head body onkeydown=handleKeyPress(event); pPress a key!/p /body /html However, adding... !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd; ...before the HTML...makes the Firefox page valid AND it still works ok. Whereas the IE page, though also now valid, but no alert appears upon key press! What's the story? Cheers, Simon *** 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] DOCTYPE prevents script processing in IE!
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 __ 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] DOCTYPE prevents script processing in IE!
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. html lang=en-US head title Keypress testing. /title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=utf-8 script type=text/javascript function handleKeyPress(evt) { alert(Key pressed!) } /script /head body onkeydown=handleKeyPress(event); pPress a key!/p /body /html However, adding... !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd; ...before the HTML...makes the Firefox page valid AND it still works ok. Whereas the IE page, though also now valid, but no alert appears upon key press! Does it matter whether you return true or false? Because every example I've seen returns something, but you don't return anything. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. I find that building stuff with standards has dramatically reduced my development time, which in turn reflects quite favourably to the cost I can quote when doing my occasional bits of freelance. Of course, at the same time I'm also quite picky as to which projects I take...and if the initial discussion with a client already starts off with something like that guy can do it cheaper, then that's not the kind of client I want/need (as in the long run, they'll ALWAYS be more trouble than they're worth). IMHO, of course. 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 PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 cheaper) to write than tag soup? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: DOCTYPE prevents script processing in IE!
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. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd; html lang=en-US head title Keypress testing 14. /title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=utf-8 script type=text/javascript function handleKeyPress(evt) { alert(Key pressed!) } document.onkeydown = handleKeyPress; /script /head body pPress a key!/p /body /html Cheers, Simon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 low quality code from scratch, than a good one, so that's not the kind of question I would ask in the first place. As I see it: what may be good accessibility-wise is even better for the developer during the work-process, so I base my work on quality in order to save time - and money. 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. That's what the client wants. That's not often what s\he gets. Dysfunctional and anything but nice seems to be the norm for both cheap, and plenty of not so cheap, sites. So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Then Cowboy Design Joe may get a cheap client. At least I won't - and thanks heaven for that. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Why DON'T you-know-who just fix the site?
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 that other people think they should because A. They don't see why they should B. People hate to be told to do anything. Telling not selling never works. I suspect because it reminds people of their parents, You should do this because I told you to. Telling someone a should when backed with a big stick like a law can appear to work but it's only superficial adherence, not a deep commitment. Standards and accessibility have a reputation, a perception, that they're expensive and, even more importantly, increase development time and that only a small, strident group of standardistas believe in the importance of adhering to standards and only a small group are affected by accessibility. Perceptions become reality to those that hold the perception. Add to that perception that most organizational decision makers do not buy their stuff on the web, or sometimes even buy that there should be a web. It was only several years ago that I was still hearing, But then they'll see our prices if we put our products on the web! Politicians also don't buy their stuff on the web, but they have little antennae that are reactive to the loudness of the vox populi. A small, loud group can be loud enough to get the attention of their antennae. Telling ain't selling and honey is more attractive than vinegar. If someone thinks that someone else should act, think, do in a different way and that someone doesn't respond how they should, then where's the fault? Is the fault with the person shouting the message, or the person who is unable to hear the message? Good salespeople know that if someone's not hearing their message, it's their fault and they need to repackage the message. Instead of thinking about fault, think about how to change the perception so that businesses will buy standards and accessibility - without using the word should. Pierce the perception. Christie Mason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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/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. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. 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. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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've no doubt it does happen at times). Building codes/laws currently have a higher level of respect than web accessibility legislation. Web accessibilty laws haven't been heavily enforced in most countries, hence the need for cases like Target - to make the laws into reality. -- --- 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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. If accessibility is considered by a skilled web designer who understands how users are likely to be impacted by different aspects of accessibility then these issues can be dealt with at the outset rather than trying to implement accessibility afterwards. I wasn't trying to belittle accessibility or suggest that it was easy but with the right skills and knowledge it should cost very little to implement single A compliance at the very least which in my opinion far too many websites fail to do. Considering aspects of the design that you've mentioned along with things like colour contrast, colour blindness, type of device being used, browser font-size etc go over and above web standards. However, if they are considered at the beginning of a project then it's not something that will add a huge amount of cost to development compared with another company who only decide at the end of development that they now need to consider accessibility. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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/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. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. 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. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers,
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
-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 ... And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 failure to design or construct in accordance with the ADA, this does not mean that the designer will escape all liability for designs that do not comply with the Act's requirements. It is very likely that any owner or operator sued for a project designed out of compliance will probably assert a negligence claim against the designer. But such a claim will concern standard of care issues, rather than the civil rights claims involved in an ADA suit. While I am not sure how this would apply to web designers vs. architects, but I certainly could see like in the case of Target, that if the web designer was an outside firm they could be included in the suit. At some point, a designer of an inaccessible website is going to get sued (its just a matter of time IMHO) and I certainly don't want to be that test case. -- Kevin Murphy Webmaster: Information and Marketing Services Western Nevada College www.wnc.edu 775-445-3326 P.S. Please note that my e-mail and website address have changed from wncc.edu to wnc.edu. On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote: 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've no doubt it does happen at times). Building codes/laws currently have a higher level of respect than web accessibility legislation. Web accessibilty laws haven't been heavily enforced in most countries, hence the need for cases like Target - to make the laws into reality. -- --- 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Thats the true cost of Accessibility. I hope you're not saying this in fear of losing business to cowboy design! I'd tell them to call Cowboy Design then. The web is too important to cut corners before you even start. It'll be that same person calling me in a year or two saying that they hate their site. There's plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for cheap. Always will be. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 implement, not about if there should be any options implemented.That gives the decision makers the appearance of being in control, and they like that. Of course, while that discussion is going on, you are also planning to implement things like img attributes and guiding them towards the best options. Biz owners tend to understand usability when it's presented in terms of their user/ customers - how to attract them, how to get them to buy more. You will be more successful in selling standards compliance and accessibility if you are perceived as the voice of your customer's customer. Christie Mason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 October 2007 16:13 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility -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 ... And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Mike *** 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] Cost of Accessibility
-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 !? Guideline, not standard. And HTML 4.01 ? That's a recommendation isn't it? (Not a standard either?) Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 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-based). Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: 08 October 2007 16:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility 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. If accessibility is considered by a skilled web designer who understands how users are likely to be impacted by different aspects of accessibility then these issues can be dealt with at the outset rather than trying to implement accessibility afterwards. I wasn't trying to belittle accessibility or suggest that it was easy but with the right skills and knowledge it should cost very little to implement single A compliance at the very least which in my opinion far too many websites fail to do. Considering aspects of the design that you've mentioned along with things like colour contrast, colour blindness, type of device being used, browser font-size etc go over and above web standards. However, if they are considered at the beginning of a project then it's not something that will add a huge amount of cost to development compared with another company who only decide at the end of development that they now need to consider accessibility. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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/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. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Designer wrote: Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk. sigh 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 involved in transitioning from table-based layout, but well worth it in terms of increased efficiencies. But then I did a view source on the page you mention - my heart sank at the sight of the dreaded MM_preloadImages()... And of course, as long as web development professionals use WYSIWYG (and as long as those professionals never look to see the mess that is in fact what you get) then I guess sloppy sites will be cheaper. And why suits like the Tt class action are, sadly, probably the only way that a truly accessible web will ever come about. Thanks - now I'm depressed! Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 very quickly, so he was replacing my stuff with his friend's. It would be unprofessional to name names, so i won't, but suffice to say that this person is not an amateur. You want a laugh? Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk. Thing is, all my effort and work to provide him with a decent site has gone down the tubes. Standards? A quick look at the code suggests it's more a case for crying. You say this person is not an amateur - but one look shows that they have used Dreamweaver without ever looking at the code that Dreamweaver generates. I stopped training people in how to use Dreamweaver when MX first came in back in 2004 - (and I've been doing penance for training people to use WYSIWYG editors ever since!). This is what we're up against - the lobby for who web design is quick and dirty and done with a WYSIWYG editor without any regard for the code, standards, accessibility or very much else (not a single alt attribute on the page I looked at!). You must be gutted, Bob! Andrew - this is what we're facing. It is easier to write compliant and accessible HTML - but how many designers are writing code at all (or care at all about standards?). The gap between WYSIWYG users and web artisans is growing wider - not narrowing! Simon www.simonmoss.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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-based). You're right of course. If a design _relies_ on screen, mouse, keyboard in the normal sense, then it is nearly impossible to make such a design accessible, or usable, if any of those input/output devices goes missing, are replaced with something else, or are changed from the norm. This includes visitors with issues/needs that deviate from the norm, who may still use the normal devices in a near-but-not-quite-normal way. The only way to make that work is to take away the _reliances_, and that may mean: 1: a completely different design without such reliances. 2: a new, and accessible, base that everything else can stay on top of. 3: lots of workarounds/additions to make main parts of the design somewhat accessible - for most. 4: side-by-side alternatives. Of course this costs time and money - especially if client demands are for visual perfection compared to a graphic design. Few clients and/or graphic designers see anything but the visual, and they rarely ever use their own creations to such a degree that they realize any visual or non-visual weaknesses beyond their own norm. So, we may definitely have problems - with clients and graphic designers. The question is whether we should solve the problems and have reasonably happy visitors, make the paying client happy, forget the whole issue, or leave the job to whoever wants it. I prefer to combine the two first options if at all possible, but I'm no stranger to the last option. I will never let myself forget the whole issue for any price, so if the other parties involved are not willing to compromise in order to reach a reasonably well-working solution, then I'm not either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 em$$$/em and I had worked with a few of them - my insistence on building accessible site only got myself fired. Always will be if there is no law telling them they must build accessible websites. My dilemma is, I don't want the law tells me I must build accessible websites, and I don't want to build accessible sites because I afraid people with disability might sue me. I want to build accessible sites because that is the right thing to do and I have pride in what I do. Sometimes I do wonder, are some people (including me) in the WSG list live in our fancy world. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 the WSG list live in our fancy world. Yes, I think we are, and I also think that's a good thing - as long as we can afford to. Living in our own fancy world sure sounds, and feels, better than having a second life[1] :-) regards Georg [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***