On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant wrote:
> @Thierry
> I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
>
Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not
keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it?
Now you've exposed your na
I whole heartily agree with you Tee, and more importantly with Tim
Berners-Lee, the Internet as a whole was invited for the people to share
information, and how can information be shared if accessibility is
limited, even on intranet's if the system is built from the beginning to
be widely acces
> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
> On Behalf Of Oliver Boermans
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:21 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Minimal forms or marking up a search field
>
> On 31 January 2010 13:45, Thierry Koblentz
> wrote
On 31 January 2010 13:45, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>> You do not need nor a as they are intended for
>> grouping form fields on more complex forms.
>
> I agree.
> I'd just use a DIV to wrap these form controls.
Thanks guys, I’m glad I asked this question. I was carrying around the
idea that the
Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :)
Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the
West, all those corporates that make software, have a big influence and
dominated the market (Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from
the West.
So "lack of time" is an excuse we can use for not using accessibility from the
start? How "convenient" we can use that excuse for not helping potential users.
Besides, every email in this thread has the title "Accessibility does not
matter!" with the "!".
Interesting you can't envisage anybody
Jason,
I can not accept that underline text on your post is not a clickable link.
Your W3C and WCAG words did not have its abbreviation.
And the option at the bottom of submit button is not in a logical
order, I think. :)
--
Regards,
Dani Iswara
http://daniiswara.net/
*
> If you are looking for a simple search form (i.e. the input box into
> which user enters a search term followed by 'Search' submit button)
> you should be using something like this.
>
> Search
>
>
>
> You do not need nor a as they are intended for
> grouping form fields on more complex form
Hi Ollie,
If you are looking for a simple search form (i.e. the input box into
which user enters a search term followed by 'Search' submit button)
you should be using something like this.
Search
You do not need nor a as they are intended for
grouping form fields on more complex forms.
Hope
A practical distraction for the standardistas and accessibility gurus…
Hoping tap your brain for an alternative perspective on the simple and
common HTML scenario of a site search form.
Search this site
Keyword/s
As far as I understand it this mark-up meets the
@Peter
Title of my article is 'Accessibility does not matter?' (the question
mark is very intentional there).
To address your second point I will go back to the app I am currently
developing. It needs a lot of JavaScript to improve usability of the
tool and a progressively enhanced solution would
Jason your subject line is "Accessibility does not matter!". If you're going
to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world
examples to back up your claim.
Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That is
the flaw in your argument and
@Thierry
I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can.
It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as
Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a
semi-meaningful way.
This
> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
> On Behalf Of Jason Grant
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
>>> So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completel
Jason, I would not feel comfortable working for a client with such disregard
for accessibility. To extend your argument if the client asks me to break the
law does that make it OK? There is a real business need to have even intranet
systems that are accessible.
As for your assertion in the fol
ADMIN
This discussion is quickly deteriorating into name calling, finger
pointing, etc.
Please return to the discussion, and be respectful of each other -
regardless of your differences of opinion.
Thanks
Russ
***
List Gui
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:
> @Chris F. A. Johnson
> Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still
> accessible with larger font size.
But even that is unnecessary; there's no good reason not to have
it look good for everyone.
> How do you propose overc
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:
> @Chris
> I couldn't resist this Sir.
> Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/
> Uses two tables on the front page.
> The first should be a and both are missing section. Poor
> accessibility.
I agree. That's a very old page that I haven't yet got aro
@Chris
I couldn't resist this Sir.
Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/
Uses two tables on the front page.
The first should be a and both are missing section. Poor
accessibility.
It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an
, but at the very top you have construct going o
@Chris F. A. Johnson
Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still
accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this
issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish
like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's
cont
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:
> Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.
...
> @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the
> browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice
> to have test environment details).
The only e
> On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:22 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
> > @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to
> > use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets
I tried your calculator example on Mac OSX 10.6 in Firefox, Safari and
Chrome and it did not work in any of them.
Also, why duplicate functionality that already exists in jQuery. You can get
fully functional fading and a plug-in calculator that work across all
current browsers and all operating sy
On 30/01/2010 16:57, Jason Grant wrote:
@Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD
working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I
can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in
my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed
Good afternoon Jason,
It was foretold that
on 30/01/2010 @ 16:57:27 GMT+ (which was 14:57:27 where I live)
Jason Grant would write:
JG> @Luc Glad we agree. ;-)
Just to make myself clear: i don't agree with your point of view: the
quoted text was to illustrate the motive that o
Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.
If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about
accessibility whether I am right or wrong.
I will try and reply directly to remarks made by various individuals:
@Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a U
I also agree with this, and I have a problem with someone whose view on
accessibility seems to focus on the technologies, not the people using
those technologies.
I have a modern browser (Firefox 3.5) with full support for Javascript,
Flash, etc. I also have disabilities which make it very di
>
>
> The site is www.purencool.com
>
>
I caught a "border:hidden" in one of the h1 elements. Not wanting to sound like
a fool so I googled it first to see if this is something I have not learned to
use after all these years writing CSS, but I find no references.
The design is clean, pleasa
28 matches
Mail list logo
