RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

2007-09-10 Thread John Foliot
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
 
 What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default
 when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text
 prompt?  (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly
 selects empty or types in some text.)

Currently, most screen technology would prefer alt=, as this signals that
the value string for ALT is... Nothing.  Not great, to be sure, but better
than DC10567.jpg or echoing back information provided elsewhere (through
@caption or @title or similar)

 
 What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles?  (It
 currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and
 title attributes)

Wikipedia should allow users to specify alt text (it currently does not).
By design, when uploading an image, there should be a default table in the
DB for alternative text.  Given the many times that images in tools such as
wikipedia re-use images, content authors should be prompted to use the
default alternative text, or supply 'new' alt text.  Currently wikipedia's
answer is to not allow content contributors to provide *any* alt text.

 
 What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc.
 generate and insert?

Same as above

 
 What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use?


Same as above

 
 What should an email application insert when a user emails an image
 to a friend?

This one is trickier, and makes presumptions that are not in evidence.  For
example, this presumes that everyone is using HTML rich email, a bad
presumption.  It secondly presumes that personal one-to-one correspondence
might be shared, a bit of a stretch.  However, assuming that a user is
creating HTML rich email in an authoring environment like Outlook, the tool
should prompt for alt text similar to what tools such as Dreamweaver should
do, and provide the same fallback: alt=.  In online environments
(Yahoo!Mail or Gmail or what-ever) then they should handle this question
like Flickr and Photobucket would.

Nothing in the world will be able to force a content creator to do the right
thing, however entrenching the option to do the wrong thing should never be
considered as part of an emergent spec.  If currently the tools don't get it
right, fix the tools, don't change the rules.

JF




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



RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?

2007-04-19 Thread John Foliot
Michael MD wrote:
 interesting discussion
 
 I get a lot of mobile phone users here.
 click would definately not be a suitable word to use on any page
 mobile phone users are likely to look at.
 
 ...however I might use that word on pages that require javascript
 such as those that use an external api to display maps.
 The only people able to use those pages are people using a web
 browser that can execute javascript... and 99.99% of such users would
 be using a mouse or a pointing device designed to emulate a mouse!

Interesting.  

Can you point to the source of this statistical declaration?  I can point to
semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support
JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php], but I'm
curious as to where you can state that 99.99% of user would be using a mouse
or similar pointing device.  Hard statistical data like this is very
difficult to come by, and so any credible source is interesting to both
myself, and I'm sure others.

Cheers!

JF



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



RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?

2007-04-19 Thread John Foliot
James Leslie wrote:
 On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of
 our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here
 for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist
 that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context,
 rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the
 only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of
 the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a
 suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does
 anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances?

One thing I try to encourage is to rephrase the statement to actually
present the URL as part of the on screen text, for example:

...More information regarding foobar can be found at: a href=link_uri
blah blahlink_uri/a.

1) almost everyone recognizes a structured URI as being a link, there is no
ambiguity there
2) surprisingly, some people still print out web pages, and providing the
actual uri in print benefits these people
3) making the uri the actual link text ensures that the link text is unique
for the page
4) this is technology agnostic

JF

*blah blah in uri above = title, class or id declarations as
required/desired



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



RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?

2007-04-19 Thread John Foliot
Terrence Wood wrote:
 John Foliot wrote:
 semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support
 JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php]
 
 Granted, this appears to be more reliable than 99.9% - but isn't
 javascript required in order for thecounter.com to gather stats, or
 do they use web bugs?  
 
 I think it is (semi) safer to say 4% of visitors to sites using
 thecounter.com counters do not have javascript enabled =) 
 

No argument, which is why I said semi-credible... like most web stats they
are subject to numerous variables. However, for the sake of discussion, they
can at least be referenced by all, unlike the incredulous 99.99% number I
was questioning.  

JF



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



RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?

2007-04-18 Thread John Foliot
Brian Cummiskey wrote:
 I've been using View Larger Image.
 
 something like this:
 
 a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img
 src=small.jpg alt= /br /View Larger Image/a
 
 
 Good discussion.  :)

Let's introduce a new slant to this: what happens if there are 16 thumbnail
images in a gallery (4 up, 4 across)?  

Are you going to write: 
a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img
src=small.jpg alt= /
  br /View Larger Image/a
...16 times?  

You *CANNOT* expect that the title attribute will be voiced by a screen
reader, as this is directly affected by the verbosity setting established by
the end user.  If a power user sets verbosity to minimal (Advanced in JAWS,
which has I believe 3 settings: Beginner, intermediate and advanced, with
granular options on top of that such as Words Include Symbols - see the
Freedom Scientific site for more details, and remember that this is *just*
JAWS, there *are* other screen readers out there...)... At any rate, if they
set it to advanced then JAWS usually does not read aloud the title
attribute.  So what you will have then, when bringing up a list of links on
the page, is 16 unique links with the identical link text - hardly
user-friendly or accessible.

One way around this would be to announce prior to the image array to Click
on any image to view a larger version (or similar).  Another way, if the
image is being populated via a database, would be to echo back the unique
image name as part of the link text; this way, each link has unique text
associated to it:

a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img
src=small.jpg alt= /
  br /?php echo $imagetitle; ? - Larger Image/a

...for example.  Placing the image title first in the link text will
eliminate the annoying array of 16 unique links all starting with the same
words, useful when the user orders the links alphabetically.

Just some more to think about...

Oh, for the most part, while avoiding the phrase Click may seem to be
politically correct, it has become so common that even non-sighted users get
it - it's like my blind friends saying see you later: no harm, no foul.

Cheers!

JF



 



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



RE: [WSG] PopUp windows

2007-03-07 Thread John Foliot
Paul Novitski wrote:
 You'll want to warn users, e.g. with a title/tooltip that says
 something like (Opens in a new window).  I've been told by a small
 number of screen-reader users that this solves for them the
 disconcerting problem of windows popping open with back buttons
 disabled.

Late to the party:

This presumes of course that the user-agent will either produce a tool-tip,
and/or that a screen reader has been configured to read aloud the title
attribute - two conditions I would not bet the farm on...

JF




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



RE: [WSG] Today's lesson: Respect - be courteous up or leave

2006-02-10 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
 Unfortunately, top posting (or failing to quote at all) is often the
 result users of broken e-mail clients (usually Outlook or some web
 based mail).  I find the best approach is to just set a good example,
 and hope that others eventually get the idea and/or switch mail
 clients. 

For those users married to their MS Office suite (and thus Outlook), you
may be interested in this:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

Problem solved.

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] ACCESS + KEY still = ACCESSKEY

2005-11-18 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
With apologies for cross posting.

Dear Friends,

For the many that know me, you will know that a post to any of the lists
I subscribe to on the topic of ACCESSKEY will automatically receive a
response from me.  I think by now my position is abundantly clear on
this topic.

When I first heard that XHTML 2 was deprecating ACCESSKEY in favor of
the ACCESS element and the ROLE attribute, my initial reaction was,
Finally, they will get this right and a  predictable, useful, stable
means will finally emerge to provide keyboard navigation to those that
can truly benefit from it.  For while I have continually decried the
mess and potential for harm that ACCESSKEY presented, I have always
supported and advocated for a better way, and we publicly applauded the
W3C for getting it too (Aug. 14, 2004 -
http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66).

Along the way however, the ACCESS element has been shackled with the
KEY attribute, allowing the possibility for the content author to
dictate a specific key binding to one or more of the access points, in
effect, I believe, replicating and perpetuating many of the most serious
issues with ACCESSKEY: keystroke conflicts, little or no conflict
resolution, internationalization issues, lack of an existing or
persistent standard, etc.

And so I have asked the Editors of the XHTML 2 Draft Recommendation to
remove the KEY attribute from the specification.  The full text of my
request is published on the WATS.ca website:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/xhtmlroleaccessmodulestillflawed/80

I ask that you take the five minutes required to review my request, and
if you believe, as I do, that the KEY attribute has no place in XHTML 2,
then I urge you to say so to the Draft Editors at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international
consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, AND THE PUBLIC
work together to develop Web standards. (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/)

Thank you.

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053  


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] computer arts mag article/review

2005-09-25 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
 From my personal perspective, Dreamweaver
 has a fantastic coding view similar to Homesite, with the additional
 features of FTP, CSS and Site Management. 

Uhm... It *is* HomeSite, which Macromedia bought to add to their
Dreamweaver Suite (they also bought ColdFusion, which shipped with
HomeSite as the editing environment, eons ago).  You can still purchase
Homesite as a stand-alone app, and this old dog still swears by it; I
use it daily.  

JF


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] 'em' versus '%'

2005-09-25 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Felix Miata wrote:
 
 No, it's not 16px. It's whatever size the user's browser default is
 set to. In most modern browsers, it just happens to start at 16px in
 most cases, but that is partly by accident, and is subject to user
 adjustment in multiple ways.   

The W3C has specified 16px/96ppi as a standard default text size, and
most modern browsers on the Macintosh and Windows platforms have honored
that specification since 2000*. (Alas, that rules out Netscape 4.x -
grin) None-the-less, today's Standards compliant browser generally
renders a default EM as 16 pixels.

(See the W3C CSS1 Specifications at
www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111#length-units plus the Errata Notice
correcting the original CSS1 spec.
www.w3.org/Style/css1-updates/REC-CSS1-19990111-errata.html)

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053  


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Censorship (was RE: [WSG] IE Showing Transparent - APOLOGY)

2005-09-17 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Ingo Chao wrote:
 Rick Faaberg wrote:
 Where do we draw the line on these sites?
 
 The reason why this did not happen before on the WSG mail list is
 because no poster before did have problems in drawing a line for
 himself. 
 
 We should not change this unwritten agreement.

Please do not impose your personal morality on this list.  

I do not believe that we should be censoring materials based solely on
content.  I *DO* agree that when providing links to examples where the
content *may* be of a potentially offensive or questionable content,
that it be indicated clearly up front, which did not happen this time.
However, the development question it's self was both legitimate and fair
game for a list on web standards and web development.  What next?   No
links to religious sites?  To pro-choice/anti-abortion sites?  To sites
dedicated to gay rights and same sex marriage?  Who decides where the
line is drawn? 

No, I believe posters to this list have a personal and PROFESSIONAL
obligation to flag sites containing potentially 'incendiary' content,
and then readers can apply their own moral judgment as required (and
perhaps this should be added to the List's Guidelines / Rules of
Participation: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm, with
failure to do so an actionable offense).  

Anything else is offensive _to me_!

JF
--
John Foliot
Perth, Ontario


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Staying on topic (was RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities)

2005-08-23 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Stuart Sherwood wrote:
 
 Hi All,
 If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility
 issues or are there more? 
 

Stuart,

There are also the soft tests - often these deal with areas of
cognitive issues, from dyslexia to English as a second or third
language, etc.  Consider the requirement for appropriate and descriptive
ALT text... What is appropriate, and further, who decides?  Then there
is the whole issue of readability - test such as the Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level Score can give you an idea if your content is written in
language appropriate for the site's intended audience, but it's hardly
an exact science. (http://wats.ca/resources/determiningreadability/1).  

There are also issues surrounding appropriate use of tables, list types,
etc. which require judgment calls.  Here, once the appropriate container
has been chosen (UL, OL, table?), you must then check to ensure that
they have been constructed appropriately - for example does your table
have (or even require) a summary?  Scope / headers  ID, etc.?

As for testing tools, in addition to the ones already mentioned, we have
collected a number of other gadgets which can be of assistance:
http://wats.ca/resources/testingtools/44


Geoff Deering wrote:
 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/checkpoint-list.html
 
 I think there are P3 checkpoints that are not covered here that you
 would need to check manually.

There are in fact checkpoints under all three Priorities which require
brain intervention - they simply cannot be tested mechanically.  Try
running a page through something like Cynthia says
(http://www.cynthiasays.com) will quickly show you what needs to be
manually checked.  Cynthia says also provides a fairly extensive chart
of what and how their tests are run
(http://www.cynthiasays.com/Standards/CynthiaVersusBobby.htm)

 
 Just as a side issue, there is a lot of debate in the accessibility
 community about the merit of using accesskeys, tabindex, etc.

Did somebody say accesskeys?  Whoa-boy...

Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19

More reasons why we don't use accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37

Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations: 
http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38  

Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52

The Future of Accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66 



 
 IMHO, many accessibility practitioners aim for WAI-AA, whilst
 incorporating the most practical of the WAI-AAA checkpoints to aid
 accessibility.

As a general assumption, this is a relatively fair statement.  Please
remember that the WCAG is now 6 years old (May 1999), and it's showing
it's age.  Regrettably, some developers must adhere slavishly to the
checkpoints - often creating more problems than they are solving, but
that is simply due to the fact that the Guidelines were never written to
be Standards - but are now serving that role more often than not.  If
you *do* have the luxury of being flexible, shooting for a WCAG AA+
standing is probably your safest position, but determining that
ranking cannot be measured by simple tools alone - a clear and
experienced understanding of the issues will always be required.  The
clear understanding can come from hanging out in forums such as this
one, the WAI-IG (http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/), WebAIM
(www.webaim.org/gettinghelp/) and GAWDS (the Guild of Accessible Web
Developers - http://www.gawds.org/discuss/).  Many of the regulars on
these lists are only too happy to lend a hand and provide answers, etc.
when asked.

Experience on the other hand takes time...  But it's really worth the
wait.

HTH

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] IE Madness

2005-08-18 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Patrick Haney wrote:
 Internet Explorer cannot open the internet site http://
 www.fifeweb.org/wp/events/evnt_ga_res_2005_01.html. Operation
 aborted. 
 
 It seems as if IE is striping off the #top fragment.
 
 Anyone know how to fix this?
 
 Bob,
 

Late to the party, but I cannot replicate this problem (IE 6.0.2 / W2K).
FWIW...

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Stupid Questions? (was RE: [WSG] display: inline-block: valid or not? W3C validator says not.)

2005-08-15 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
SunUp wrote:
 I do realise this is probably a very stupid question, and it's more
 than a little scary asking a stupid question on this list, but I'll
 wear the result if it means I can understand what I've done wrong.
 
 Thanks,
 sunny.

Goodness Sunny,

There really is no such thing as a stupid question - please, I really
hope that this list has not reached the point that newer subscribers
feel intimidated to ask questions.  Your question was both valid and
well posed.

Hey everybody!  There is no such thing as a stupid question (although
occasionally we will see stupid responses...)

Cheers all!

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



[WSG] RE: Stupid Questions? (was RE: [WSG] display: inline-block: valid or not? W3C validator says not.)

2005-08-15 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Patrick Lauke wrote:
 John Foliot - WATS.ca
 
 There is no such thing as a stupid question (although
 occasionally we will see stupid responses...)
 
 You tell 'em John :)
 
 P

As a point of clarification, when I say stupid responses, I meant in the
form of condescending or mean responses, rather than factually
inaccurate responses (which sometimes *do* crop up, but not that
frequently).  My concern was that a new member felt intimidated to ask
a question here, which made me sad...

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] Spacing Issue

2005-08-14 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=112 BORDER=0
HEIGHT=1 ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=78 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD

TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=63 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=44 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=80 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=105 BORDER=0
HEIGHT=1 ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=11 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=74 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=23 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
TDIMG SRC=images/space.gif WIDTH=1 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=1
ALT=spacer/TD
/TR

(extract from your source code: this is standards based design?)

The simple answer to your question is, don't do it the way you are doing
it.  That may seem elitist to you, but to me, that just seems common
sense.

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 






**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Accesskeys (Was RE: [WSG] Re: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org)

2005-08-14 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Josh Rose wrote:
 
 What I'm trying to do is have the accesskey underlined, it works fine
 in Firefox and Opera (wayhey), but in IE 6 the a:first-letter works
 fine, but a:hover doesn't at all (it does without a:first-letter
 though) and in Netscape 7 the a:first-letter doesn't work at all
 (just netscapes css support?) but a:hover does.  Phew.
 
 The CSS is probably a bit bulky, but go easy on me, I'm newish to
 this. 
 
 Any ideas?  If at all possible I'd like to avoid CSS hacks.
 
 Thanks,
 Josh.

En Francais eh?  Bienvenue!

Josh,

Accesskeys?  May I suggest you review the following?

Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19

More reasons why we don't use accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37

Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations: 
http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38  

Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52

The Future of Accesskeys: 
http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66 

Perhaps after reviewing these, you may consider eliminating them
entirely, making your quest a moot point.

Cheers!

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] Table header

2005-08-14 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
 Lea de Groot wrote:
 
 The thead tag is the key -
 
 If you're using thead, you may as well go all the way and add a tbody
 as well...
 
table
thead
tr
   thID/ththVar 1/ththVar 2/th
/tr
/thead
tbody
   tr
   tdID VALUE/td
   tdVar 1 value/td
   tdVar 2 value/td
   /tr
/tbody
/table

Heck, if you're going to go all the way, why not also include the
tfoot (which comes after the thead, but before the tbody and
essentially mimics the thead - this is useful for larger tables).
Then, if you want to get real fancy, and you have a larger table, you
can set the height of the tbody and make it scroll.  While not
supported in all browsers, those that don't will simply default to a
full table:

tbody style=height: 350px; overflow: scroll;

Sample at: http://wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38

Cheers!

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] Newbie Questions: East-Asian Character Sets and Marking-up Poetry

2005-08-09 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Kwok Ting Lee wrote:
 This is, I guess, one of the first times I've written anything here,
 but I've run into a bit of a dilemma and was hoping for some advice:
 
 1.  I have a number of analyses of poems I am planning on posting to
 my weblog over the next few months, however, I'm a bit stumped as to
 what mark-up would be most semantically correct  (The poems are quoted
 from another source, so for the time being I was thinking of using a
 blockquote):
 
 A.blockquote
   h3Title of Poem/h3
   p class=stanza
   Blah...blah..blah...br/
   More blah.br/
   
   /p
   /blockquote
 
 Or:
 
 B.dl class=poem
   dtTitle of Poem/dt
   ddBlah...blah..blach.../dd
   ddMore blah/dd
   ...
   /dl
 

Oh, no, definitely not the second option!  Absolutely wrong use of the
definition list.

Perhaps:

h3Title of Poem/h3
  blockquote
p class=stanza
Blah...blah..blah...br/
More blah.br/

/p
  /blockquote
  panalyse of poem.../p

In other words, you separate your content from the original authors.
You may also want to include the cite attribute, as you indicate that
the source of the texts are from elsewhere:

blockquote cite=http://www.other_source.com;

Also, not sure about Chinese poetry, but I know western poetry often
requires specific line breaks, making it a candidate for pre... (just
a random thought...)

h3Title of Poem/h3
  blockquote
pre
Blah...blah..blah...
More blah.

/pre
  /blockquote
  panalyse of poem.../p

Good Luck, HTH

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)

2005-08-04 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Nicola Rae wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of
 Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the
 correct terms to use are:
 
 In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be
 'disabled users'.
 
 In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities'  - it should be
 'physical impairment'.
 
 As I also thought it was users with disabilities.
 
 Nikki
 


For What it's Worth Dept

About 3 years ago, I received permission to mirror the following Words
With Dignity (http://wats.ca/resources/wordswithdignity/35), created by
the Active Living Alliance, a NGO here in Canada
(http://www.ala.ca/content/home.asp).  

So, not to be contrary to Nikki, it seems that it may also be a cultural
thing, as the ALA suggest Person(s) with a disability.  Perhaps their
final advice is most relevant: Remember, appropriate terminology
changes with the times. If in doubt, ask. Most people with a disability
will be more than willing to help you.

HTH

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/

2005-08-04 Thread John Foliot - WATS.ca
Conyers, Dwayne wrote:
 Leslie Riggs wrote:
 
 Following web standards is all well and good,
 but how are you going to stream the audio when
 you can't hear it, if you can't do it this?
 How do you know your method will WORK?
 
 Some people can be thick -- even when well-intentioned.
 
 But on the subject of streaming -- I find that very few streaming
 broadcasts use captioning.  Most television broadcasts have closed
 captioning as mandatory and the ability to transmit text with radio
 broadcasts is being used (although, more as an added feature).  I
 imagine the wild-west unregulated state of the web makes such
 enforcement difficult at best.

WCAG Priority 1: 
1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via
alt, longdesc, or in element content). This includes: images,
graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map
regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic
objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets,
spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user
interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent
of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important
information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.


1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or
animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or
auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.

FWIW, Captioning is relatively easy these days, even *if* different
vendors use different implementations of SMIL.  Of the 3 major
methods/formats I've played with (QT, Real and Flash), Flash was the
easiest, and given the widespread deployment of the plug-in probably the
most universal of the three. 

If/when it comes to real-time however, all bets are off smile, as it
still is somewhat labor intensive at the development end.

 
 I am sure there would be howls of protest if some licensing, such as
 an FCC license for broadcasting, would be mandatory for the web -- and
 perhaps there should be some citizens band version of the web (which
 the spammers will overrun) and a professional version.  Interesting
 thought...
 

Please, no...

JF
--
John Foliot  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**