[WSG] 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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?
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] ***