[WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Jessica Enders

Hello

I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered  
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies  
must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.


RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.  
Apparently if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well  
by screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access:  
Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on  
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission website (http:// 
hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests  
that RTF is considered acceptable.


Any views?

Jessica Enders
Director
Formulate Information Design

http://formulate.com.au

Phone: (02) 6116 8765
Fax: (02) 8456 5916
PO Box 5108
Braddon ACT 2612




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Rae Buerckner
Hi Jessica,

The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is
PDF  RTF format.

Cheers,

Rae

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Hello

 I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible,
 to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide
 electronic documents in an accessible format.

 RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it. Apparently
 if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers.
 Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination
 Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights and Equal
 Opportunity Commission website (http://
 hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests that
 RTF is considered acceptable.

 Any views?

 Jessica Enders
 Director
 Formulate Information Design
 
 http://formulate.com.au
 
 Phone: (02) 6116 8765
 Fax: (02) 8456 5916
 PO Box 5108
 Braddon ACT 2612
 



 ***
 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] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Josh Moore




Hello Rae,

Wondering where you get this info, and what countries you are speaking
of. 

- Josh


Rae Buerckner wrote:
Hi Jessica,
  
The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments
is PDF  RTF format.
  
Cheers,
  
Rae
  
  On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica
Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Hello

I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies
must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.

RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.
Apparently if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by
screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access:
Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission website (http://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html)
suggests that RTF is considered acceptable.

Any views?

Jessica Enders
Director
Formulate Information Design

http://formulate.com.au

Phone: (02) 6116 8765
Fax: (02) 8456 5916
PO Box 5108
Braddon ACT 2612




***
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]
***
  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1460 - Release Date: 5/22/2008 7:06 AM
  




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***



[WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Jessica Enders
I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I  
mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by  
some, to compromise accessibility.


Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general  
text documents. I think this makes the situation a little bit messier.


Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice  
- we're just looking at the other options that might be available if  
it isn't.


Thanks again for all your help,


Jessica Enders
Director
Formulate Information Design

http://formulate.com.au

Phone: (02) 6116 8765
Fax: (02) 8456 5916
PO Box 5108
Braddon ACT 2612


Begin forwarded message:


From: Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 May 2008 4:08:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], wsg@webstandardsgroup.org,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Is RTF accessible?

Hello

I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered  
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government  
agencies must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.


RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.  
Apparently if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well  
by screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access:  
Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you)  
on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission website  
(http://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html)  
suggests that RTF is considered acceptable.


Any views?

Jessica Enders
Director
Formulate Information Design

http://formulate.com.au

Phone: (02) 6116 8765
Fax: (02) 8456 5916
PO Box 5108
Braddon ACT 2612






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Rae Buerckner
Hi Josh,

I work in Private Sector now, but until 1 year ago I was had of Ministerial
and Prime Ministerial Projects in the ICT Applications Branch at the
Department of Industry Tourism  Resources in Canberra Australia.

Cheers,

Rae

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Josh Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Hello Rae,

 Wondering where you get this info, and what countries you are speaking of.

 - Josh


 Rae Buerckner wrote:

 Hi Jessica,

 The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is
 PDF  RTF format.

 Cheers,

 Rae

 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 Hello

 I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible,
 to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide
 electronic documents in an accessible format.

 RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.
 Apparently if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by
 screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability
 Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights
 and Equal Opportunity Commission website (http://
 hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests that
 RTF is considered acceptable.

 Any views?

 Jessica Enders
 Director
 Formulate Information Design
 
 http://formulate.com.au
 
 Phone: (02) 6116 8765
 Fax: (02) 8456 5916
 PO Box 5108
 Braddon ACT 2612
 



 ***
 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]
 ***

 --

 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG.
 Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1460 - Release Date: 5/22/2008 
 7:06 AM



 ***
 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] Re: [canberra_ia_community] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Andrew Boyd
Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that
I've worked in/around.

It is necessary to separate this discussion from how do I make PDF accessible?

Cheers, Andrew

On 5/27/08, Rae Buerckner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi Jessica,

 The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is
 PDF  RTF format.

 Cheers,

 Rae

 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 Hello

 I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible,
 to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide
 electronic documents in an accessible format.

 RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.
 Apparently
 if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen
 readers.
 Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination
 Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights and Equal
 Opportunity Commission website (http://
 hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests that
 RTF is considered acceptable.

 Any views?

 Jessica Enders
 Director
 Formulate Information Design
 
 http://formulate.com.au
 
 Phone: (02) 6116 8765
 Fax: (02) 8456 5916
 PO Box 5108
 Braddon ACT 2612
 



 ***
 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]
 ***


-- 
---
Andrew Boyd
http://onblogging.com.au


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Mark Harris

Jessica Enders wrote:
I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I 
mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by 
some, to compromise accessibility.


Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text 
documents. I think this makes the situation a little bit messier.


Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice - 
we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it 
isn't.



RTF is a lot like PDF - owned by a company but generally regarded as an 
open standard (I think Adobe might have formalized that at some point). 
RTF has been around so long (and is essentially so simple) that there 
just aren't any hidden bits to trip you up, as far as I am aware.


When I developed and managed the NZ Government Web Guidelines (now 
showing in its latest incarnation at http://www.webstandards.govt.nz/), 
I specified RTF as acceptable after much consultation with accessibility 
advocates, so I think you'll be pretty safe specifying it.


But you're right - HTML is better.

Cheers

Mark Harris
Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd
(Like Rae, I saw the light and got out :-)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Rae Buerckner
Hi Jessica,

Understood, I work for a company who specialise in the Adobe LiveCycle
dynamic PDF technologies.

The PDF  RTF formats for attachments to content items, are a whole of
Australian Government accessibility directive.  These are typically not
forms, although in some instances like Court documents they are.

When I was at DITR, most of our forms were W3C CSS compliant, it's only when
you get into the area of dynamic forms that it becomes complicated.  I'm
based in Canberra if I can be of any assistance.

Cheers,

Rae

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I
 mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by some,
 to compromise accessibility.

 Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text
 documents. I think this makes the situation a little bit messier.

 Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice -
 we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it isn't.

 Thanks again for all your help,


 Jessica Enders
 Director
 Formulate Information Design
 
 http://formulate.com.au
 
 Phone: (02) 6116 8765
 Fax: (02) 8456 5916
 PO Box 5108
 Braddon ACT 2612
 

 Begin forwarded message:

  From: Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 27 May 2008 4:08:26 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], wsg@webstandardsgroup.org,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Is RTF accessible?

 Hello

 I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible,
 to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide
 electronic documents in an accessible format.

 RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.
 Apparently if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by
 screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability
 Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights
 and Equal Opportunity Commission website (
 http://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html)
 suggests that RTF is considered acceptable.

 Any views?

 Jessica Enders
 Director
 Formulate Information Design
 
 http://formulate.com.au
 
 Phone: (02) 6116 8765
 Fax: (02) 8456 5916
 PO Box 5108
 Braddon ACT 2612
 




 ***
 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] Re: [canberra_ia_community] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Michael Persson


I was thinking that XML files must be accessible but also stuctured
for the purpose to deliver txt information.

Michael


Andrew Boyd wrote:

Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that
I've worked in/around.

It is necessary to separate this discussion from how do I make PDF accessible?

Cheers, Andrew

On 5/27/08, Rae Buerckner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Hi Jessica,

The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is
PDF  RTF format.

Cheers,

Rae

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:



Hello

I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible,
to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide
electronic documents in an accessible format.

RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it.
Apparently
if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen
readers.
Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination
Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission website (http://
hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests that
RTF is considered acceptable.

Any views?

Jessica Enders
Director
Formulate Information Design

http://formulate.com.au

Phone: (02) 6116 8765
Fax: (02) 8456 5916
PO Box 5108
Braddon ACT 2612




***
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]
***



  





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Alastair Campbell
 if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers.

RTF doesn't use 'styles' in the way that Word (or HTML) does, it
applies presentation tags, the semantic based styles that Word has
(e.g. Heading 1) are not there. There's an example on the Wikipedia
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

Word is more accessible for a screen reader user (assuming you have
it), and also a much better basis for creating an accessible PDF,
(which also are more capable of being accessible).

 Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination
 Act Advisory Notes... suggests that RTF is considered acceptable.

It's the difference between available and accessible. If you're doing
a simple text document, then there's little difference. If you use
images, tables, columns or headings, you can't do an RTF document that
would meet WCAG 1 at double-A.

-Alastair


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Matthew Holloway

Jessica Enders wrote:
I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered 
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies 
must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.


Is there a list of accessibility features that a format must allow, or
does the Australian federal government merely require accessible?

I am not particularly familiar with RTF however it's my understanding
that RTF may be considered a different serialization of the binary .doc
format, and by different I mean plain text:


{\rtf1\ansi{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss Helvetica;}\f0\pard
This is some {\b bold} text.\par
}
  


Yet another different serialization of .doc is into XML and this is
called ECMA-376 a.k.a. OOXML, or at least OOXML as it was in 2006 (and
from here on when I write OOXML I do mean OOXML as of 2006).

It's my understanding that RTF is only as accessible as OOXML and
therefore one could take the approach of looking for OOXML accessibility
reviews.

So, taking that approach, here is some criticism of OOXML accessibility
that apply equally to RTF:

http://tinyurl.com/yo6q4y
http://holloway.co.nz/ooxml-accessibility.pdf (an article of mine)
http://blogs.sun.com/korn/entry/talking_with_microsoft_s_gray
http://blogs.sun.com/korn/entry/cotinuing_the_conversation_with_gray


--
.Matthew Holloway
http://holloway.co.nz/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Fwd: using fieldsets and legends (outside a form) for adding structural markup

2008-05-27 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 I think your misunderstanding lies earlier than my last post.
 
 If someone wishes to use an abbr tag in the way that it was intended
 by the spec, then that is perfectly acceptable, obviously. If their
 scripting then fails in IE they have three clear choices - write a more
 robust script, change their HTML, or ignore the stupid browser - I think
 most people would recommend the former, but many people have _chosen_
 not to make use of abbr
 
 If someone decides to miss-use a fieldset, by exploiting a weakness /
 loophole in the spec then that is dubious at best.
 If that then breaks an existing script, I think most people would
 recommend that the HTML is corrected.
 My point was, that if even one browser does break, due to the browser
 following the perceived _intention_ of the spec, then that is a big deal
 - for this particular instance - and having a few that pass is not
 entirely relevant.

Hi Mike,
Thanks for clearing things up :)
I think what you call a loophole is where we don't agree. Imho, authors
may interpret the specs as much as they want, but browsers should obey
DTDs no matter what; hence if the DTD allows the use of fieldset outside of
forms, then browsers should deal with it (and not break script).


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Hayden's Harness Attachment
This topic is very interesting. As a screen reader user I have enjoyed always 
getting Rich Text files. I use to get bills in HTML which was great. However, 
everything is now PDFs. I hate PDFs! With a little more care, you could do 
everything a PDF does in an HTML file. I use a RTF editor called Jarte 
(http://www.jarte.com) with conversion packs I downloaded from Microsoft. My 
Jarte word Processor can now read everything from Word 97 to Word 2007. I am 
not a lover of Word and do not have it installed on ny PC. Besides being a 
resource hog Word takes over everything and has ties to everything on the PC. I 
do not know what is worse, Word or a virus.

Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http://www.infoforce-services.com

Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into
the light. - Helen Keller



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Tom Livingston
Hello list,

I know this might seem basic, and I searched, but came up confused...

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...

Thanks

-- 

Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Scott Barnes
How do folks find the new OOXML format in regards to this line of thinking? In 
that I'm curious to see what WSG thinks of it and how it fits in with future 
potential.

-
Scott Barnes
{Product Manager}
Microsoft.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayden's Harness 
Attachment
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:15 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

This topic is very interesting. As a screen reader user I have enjoyed always 
getting Rich Text files. I use to get bills in HTML which was great. However, 
everything is now PDFs. I hate PDFs! With a little more care, you could do 
everything a PDF does in an HTML file. I use a RTF editor called Jarte 
(http://www.jarte.com) with conversion packs I downloaded from Microsoft. My 
Jarte word Processor can now read everything from Word 97 to Word 2007. I am 
not a lover of Word and do not have it installed on ny PC. Besides being a 
resource hog Word takes over everything and has ties to everything on the PC. I 
do not know what is worse, Word or a virus.

Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http://www.infoforce-services.com

Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into
the light. - Helen Keller



***
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] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Andrew Freedman


Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...
  


Hi Tom,

I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt is 
alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever 
reason) and the title is the title of the image.  An example would be 
alt=Customer Care Logo title=We Care about you


However as I am always learning I may learn something here today.

Andrew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread kate
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the 
attribute tag.

Kate
- Original Message - 
From: Andrew Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute




Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...



Hi Tom,

I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt is
alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever
reason) and the title is the title of the image.  An example would be
alt=Customer Care Logo title=We Care about you

However as I am always learning I may learn something here today.

Andrew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***








No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1468 - Release Date: 5/26/2008 
3:23 PM




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

kate wrote:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called 
the attribute tag.


or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...

--
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/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Jon Tan

Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...



Hi Tom,

This might be useful: The alt attribute must be specified for the IMG  
and AREA elements. It is optional for the INPUT and APPLET elements.  
It's taken directly from: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt


Perhaps worth noting is that alt is short for alternative text.  
Literally, a text equivalent of the element.


On 27 May 2008, at 20:10, Andrew Freedman wrote:
I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt  
is alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever  
reason) and the title is the title of the image.  An example would  
be alt=Customer Care Logo title=We Care about you


If I read your right (assuming this hypothetical image actual has the  
text We Care About You embedded in it), the alt attribute value  
would be We Care about you and there would be no title.


Regarding the title attribute: The title attribute may annotate any  
number of elements. Taken from: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#adef-title



How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference??


You can pretty much get all the information you need on any attribute  
from the recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/attributes.html


Hope that helps,

Jon
-
http://jontangerine.com/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread dwain
On 5/27/08, Andrew Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:

  Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
  between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
  'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
  to me...
 
 

  Hi Tom,

  I may be wrong here but I've always worked on the premise that alt is
 alternative text for when the image isn't available (For whatever reason)
 and the title is the title of the image.  An example would be alt=Customer
 Care Logo title=We Care about you


if the image takes you to another part of the web site or another
place on the web, the title attribute would describe where you are
going.
dwain


-- 
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Andrew Freedman

kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called 
the attribute tag.

Kate
Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008 
5:33 AM:


or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...



That's all well and good and I for one thank you for clarifying that but 
how does that answer Tom's query?


Andrew.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Darren West
I'm not sure exactly what the spec says, go read it, but alt stands
for alternative so the content would be represented alternatively when
say the other content was unavailble. Where as title is meant to
provide additional information related to the content such as a title.

So

img src=whatever.jpg alt=whatever title=a piss take /




2008/5/27 Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Hello list,

 I know this might seem basic, and I searched, but came up confused...

 Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
 between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
 to me...

 Thanks

 --

 Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic |
 ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com


 ***
 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] AJAX short courses london

2008-05-27 Thread Joe Ortenzi

I agree.

I have rarely seen any course in web technologies that you couldn't  
get further for much less money with either a video tutorial from  
places like lynda.com or from good how to books from great publishers  
like new riders, friends of ed, o'reilleys, etc.


you can study at your own pace, replay and review difficult bits,  
skip over others, and the resource stays with you..



On May 27 2008, at 05:28, Jennie K wrote:

If you are not after accreditation try this website www.lynda.com -  
it's all online and you study at your own pace.  I've recommended  
the training to numerous people and they have all said it is of  
good quality.  You can try some of the free courses before   
committing - there are also books and cds if you don't like the  
online version.


On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Paul Collins  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi all,

I hope this is on topic. I'm trying to find a short course on AJAX in
london and having troubles finding one that is of a reasonable price
(IE- less than £300 for a half day). Could anyone recommend me one or
possibly a good school to look into?

Thanks for any help,
Paul


***
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]
***


Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.typingthevoid.com
www.joiz.com





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread jdreid

 Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
 between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
 to me...
   

Hi Tom,

Try this link:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/

Jeff

***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Andrew Maben

On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote:


kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really  
called the attribute tag.

Kate
Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on  
28/05/2008 5:33 AM:


or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...



That's all well and good and I for one thank you for clarifying  
that but how does that answer Tom's query?


Andrew.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


Really! Is there anyone on this list who doesn't understand the  
distinction between 'tag' and 'attribute'. And does anyone seriously  
not understand what is meant when reference is made to the 'alt tag',  
or to HTML 'code' rather than 'markup'?


I would certainly agree that in the context of a lecture on the  
subject these distinctions are important. But in the context of  
discussions on this list I think this is taking semantic hair- 
splitting to unwarranted extremes, especially if, as Andrew points  
out, it doesn't accompany some effort to respond to the question at  
hand.


I move that henceforth it should be acceptable here to use 'tag' as  
shorthand for 'attribute' and 'code' for 'markup'.


Andrew

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

In a well designed user interface, the user should not need  
instructions.





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Matthew Holloway

Jessica Enders wrote:
Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general 
text documents.


Oh, ok -- it certainly cannot represent accessible forms.

Even the latest RTF 1.9.1 (March 2008) does not appear to support form 
field labels, for example.


--
.Matthew Holloway
http://holloway.co.nz/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread dwain
On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The alt attribute should always be included in order to be standards
 compliant,

and accessible

 the title is optional.

some accessibility software i use says it's a good idea to use a title
for accessibility reasons.  the software is adesigner by ibm.

dwain


-- 
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread Jason Ray
hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm
forgetting whether the W3C HTML validator will reject img elements without
the alt attribute, or if it's just the accessibility validators that do so.

Jason

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The alt attribute should always be included in order to be standards
  compliant,

 and accessible

  the title is optional.

 some accessibility software i use says it's a good idea to use a title
 for accessibility reasons.  the software is adesigner by ibm.

 dwain


 --
 dwain alford
 The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
 for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky


 ***
 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] Alt versus Title Attribute

2008-05-27 Thread dwain
accessibility validators will let you know if you missed an alt
attribute and will suggest adding titles where there are either
sketchy titles or no titles at all.

dwain

On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm
 forgetting whether the W3C HTML validator will reject img elements without
 the alt attribute, or if it's just the accessibility validators that do so.

 Jason


 On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The alt attribute should always be included in order to be standards
   compliant,
 
  and accessible
 
   the title is optional.
 
  some accessibility software i use says it's a good idea to use a title
  for accessibility reasons.  the software is adesigner by ibm.
 
 
  dwain
 
 
  --
  dwain alford
  The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
  for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky
 
 
 
 ***
 
 
 
  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]
 ***


-- 
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

2008-05-27 Thread Rae Buerckner
The following is from the AGIMO website.

FAQ

*Q. We have placed a lot of our documents on our website in PDF format,
which is not readily accessible to people with sight disabilities. Apart
from converting these documents to alternative formats, which we can't
afford, what can we do?*

A. It is generally not desirable to convert a PDF file to HTML, since the
results are likely to have formatting and other navigational information
removed. Wherever possible, the original file from which the PDF is created
should be used as the basis for conversion, not the PDF file itself. If an
original non-PDF file is not available, organisations may need to consider
options such as using OCR software to scan and edit the PDF file to produce
an accessible version. The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF,
and text. It is important to note that where a document is presented in HTML
format, an option should be provided for the user to download the document
as a single file rather than as a (sometimes large) sequence of individual
pages.

Some content, such as graphs and maps, cannot be made accessible online to
people who are blind or vision-impaired. In some cases it may be possible to
use the HTML Longdesc tag to provide a verbal interpretation of pictorial
content, while in other cases it may be necessary to have such content
produced in accessible formats by external contractors. Departments should
develop strategies for responding to requests for making content available
in accessible formats, and contact information should be provided on
websites so that users will be able to direct their requests to the
appropriate person within the department.

*Q. I'm trying to make my organisation's forms available on our website, as
required by the OISO's. The only technology I've discovered for formatting
complex forms for fill and print is PDF. This is not an accessible format,
and means that we are not compliant with the accessibility guidelines. What
do I do?*

A. Although there has been some progress in making it possible for people
who are blind or vision-impaired to use online PDF forms, this option is
considered inaccessible for most users. It is often possible to design
online forms using non-PDF techniques. See, for example,
http://www.mandoforms.com, which provides guides and tools for making online
forms accessible.

PDF Forms can be made more accessible if authors provide enough information
from the form itself for people with disabilities to gauge the relevance of
the form to them.  Clients can also be given the option of submitting
information the form was designed to collect back via alternative means,
such as email.  So for example, the boxes on the form itself should have
enough information annotated to them to make it clear what the form is
trying to collect, and every form should have an email contact provided on
the form page itself, for free text replies from people who have
accessibility issues, or who simply cant get the form to work normally.

Cheers,

Rae

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Jessica Enders wrote:

 Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text
 documents.


 Oh, ok -- it certainly cannot represent accessible forms.

 Even the latest RTF 1.9.1 (March 2008) does not appear to support form
 field labels, for example.

 --
 .Matthew Holloway
 http://holloway.co.nz/




 ***
 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]
***