Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-08 Thread Joseph Taylor

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

2007-10-08 Thread Christian Snodgrass
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

2007-10-08 Thread Joseph Taylor
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

2007-10-08 Thread Elizabeth Spiegel
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

2007-10-08 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Woods
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

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Cockayne
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?

2007-10-08 Thread Stuart Foulstone
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

2007-10-08 Thread Max A. Shpack
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

2007-10-08 Thread Diego La Monica
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:

2007-10-08 Thread wsg
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

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Cockayne
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!

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Cockayne
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

2007-10-08 Thread Gary Barber
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!

2007-10-08 Thread James Jeffery
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!

2007-10-08 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

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!

2007-10-08 Thread Christian Montoya
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Patrick Lauke
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Andrew Maben

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!

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Cockayne
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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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?

2007-10-08 Thread Christie Mason
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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread Ben Buchanan
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Woods
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

2007-10-08 Thread michael.brockington
-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

2007-10-08 Thread Kevin Murphy
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

2007-10-08 Thread Patrick Lauke
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Joseph Taylor


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

2007-10-08 Thread Christie Mason
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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread michael.brockington
-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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread Andrew Maben

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

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Moss

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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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

2007-10-08 Thread Tee G. Peng


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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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]
***