Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: Anchor text such as "The Future" or "Our Projects" may be intended, but to the average user they can scan the page quickly and get an idea about what "The Future" is relating to. If they're written and constructed well, even completely blind users with screen readers can scan a page surprisingly quickly. I was a bit startled first time I heard the audio output of an experienced JAWS user...their speed setting was so high I could hardly make out a word of what was being read. In addition, this user skimmed the page very quickly, jumping from paragraph to paragraph, backtracking, slowing it down at certain points, speeding it up, etc. The Future This particular situation would be a non-issue if the actual TITLE element of the page clearly identified it as "APR Electrical Components Corporation". TITLE is read out by default to screen reader users as well as the start of the page. Then the "Future" obviously relates to the future of APR. Links should make sense out of context as much as possible, but they do still live within the context of the site/page they're in. > Great discussion though, some valid points on both ends i feel. Absolutely. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
I see where you are coming from, in a way. It seems that there is a problem, not with developers, but with accessibility overall if there is no way to provide additional information for link text. Anchor text such as "The Future" or "Our Projects" may be intended, but to the average user they can scan the page quickly and get an idea about what "The Future" is relating to. For users who find it difficult to read or view pages for whatever reason trying to figure out where that link takes you is going to be hard. That visitor may be a customer or it may be someone trying to find information. It would be better to have something like: The Future Maybe in the new versions of HTML of WCAG they should think about this, providing addition information. Primarily aimed at people with disabilities but its there for the average Joe aswell. Great discussion though, some valid points on both ends i feel. James On Nov 18, 2007 7:54 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Jeffery wrote: > > > Some do, some don't. I would rather provide to those that do and give > > the disabled a greater benifit for those that make use of the title > > attribute. > > Link text should make sense to *everybody*. If they don't, don't just > fix it for the "poor disabled users", fix it for everybody. > > Your intentions are well meant, but misplaced IMHO. And, as I was > saying, it's wrong to say "you *should* provide title" as if the > original poster made an omission. This is all opinion, not dogma. > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > __ > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > http://redux.deviantart.com > __ > Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force > http://webstandards.org/ > __ > Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team > http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ > > __ > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: Some do, some don't. I would rather provide to those that do and give the disabled a greater benifit for those that make use of the title attribute. Link text should make sense to *everybody*. If they don't, don't just fix it for the "poor disabled users", fix it for everybody. Your intentions are well meant, but misplaced IMHO. And, as I was saying, it's wrong to say "you *should* provide title" as if the original poster made an omission. This is all opinion, not dogma. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
"If a user wants to magnify the screen there are alternative methods for making link text bigger" People don't spend hundreds of pounds on magnifiers to do something that any browser can do. Most sites would break horribly if you increased the text to even 4x its normal size, and many people run much higher magnification levels than that. Magnifiers also do much more, such as colour substitution or inversion, and of course they magnify everything including the browser chrome, not just the text. At 800x600 resolution and 4x magnification, even a relatively small tooltip can obscure nearly a quarter of the screen, and it is not always obvious how to get rid of it if the active area of the link is larger than the text. And of course there is no way to turn off the tooltips. So on balance I believe that a few people benefit from 'title' attributes, a few people are negatively impacted and they are irrelevant to vast majority of people. I therefore recommend only using them when really necessary, in which case you should really be thinking more about why your link text isn't adequate. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Jeffery Sent: 18 November 2007 19:02 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check [quote cite="http://juicystudio.com/article/using-title-attribute.php";] Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tool tip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context. For example, setting the attribute on a link allows user agents (visual and non-visual) to tell users about the nature of the linked resource. [quote cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H33.html";] Assistive technologies provide different levels of support for speaking the title attribute for an anchor element. JAWS 7.0 will speak either the link text or the title attribute for a link depending upon a JAWS setting. This setting can be changed temporarily or permanently within JAWS. However, it is awkward to read both the link text and the title attribute for a link. WindowEyes 5.5 has a hot key, ins-E, that will speak additional information, including the title attribute, for the item with focus. Home Page Reader 3.04 will speak the the URL of the current page and title attribute of any element with focus when the control-shift-F1 keys are pressed simultaneously. Some do, some don't. I would rather provide to those that do and give the disabled a greater benifit for those that make use of the title attribute. It would be wrong *not* to use the title attribute when you could be helping others make more sense of your page. Its like saying "dont think about users with older browsers, they are the minority". Every user counts. If a user wants to magnify the screen there are alternative methods for making link text bigger, there is no alternative method for a user to make sense of link text. James On Nov 18, 2007 5:44 PM, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People with assistive technologies rarely benefit from 'title' attributes. > They are not displayed by text browsers, they are not accessible using > keyboard navigation (or devices that emulate keyboards) and they are > not read by screen readers with default settings. They are only > accessible to someone who uses a mouse and can hover it over the link, > in which case it is not particularly difficult to go the extra step and click it. > > On top of that, excessive use of tooltips of any kind causes an > obstacle for screen magnifier users, as they obscure a large > proportion of the page even at relatively low magnification levels. > > So I have users very much in mind when I recommend that 'title' > attributes should be used as little as possible. > > Steve > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of James Jeffery > Sent: 18 November 2007 10:32 > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check > > On Nov 18, 2007 1:19 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Jeffery wrote: > > >> Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see > > >> an issue here. > > > > > > The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly > > > and accurately describe a link and for a website thats based > > > around accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. > > > > But his links don't need it in this case. > > > > So yo
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
[quote cite="http://juicystudio.com/article/using-title-attribute.php";] Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tool tip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context. For example, setting the attribute on a link allows user agents (visual and non-visual) to tell users about the nature of the linked resource. [quote cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H33.html";] Assistive technologies provide different levels of support for speaking the title attribute for an anchor element. JAWS 7.0 will speak either the link text or the title attribute for a link depending upon a JAWS setting. This setting can be changed temporarily or permanently within JAWS. However, it is awkward to read both the link text and the title attribute for a link. WindowEyes 5.5 has a hot key, ins-E, that will speak additional information, including the title attribute, for the item with focus. Home Page Reader 3.04 will speak the the URL of the current page and title attribute of any element with focus when the control-shift-F1 keys are pressed simultaneously. Some do, some don't. I would rather provide to those that do and give the disabled a greater benifit for those that make use of the title attribute. It would be wrong *not* to use the title attribute when you could be helping others make more sense of your page. Its like saying "dont think about users with older browsers, they are the minority". Every user counts. If a user wants to magnify the screen there are alternative methods for making link text bigger, there is no alternative method for a user to make sense of link text. James On Nov 18, 2007 5:44 PM, Steve Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People with assistive technologies rarely benefit from 'title' attributes. > They are not displayed by text browsers, they are not accessible using > keyboard navigation (or devices that emulate keyboards) and they are not > read by screen readers with default settings. They are only accessible to > someone who uses a mouse and can hover it over the link, in which case it is > not particularly difficult to go the extra step and click it. > > On top of that, excessive use of tooltips of any kind causes an obstacle for > screen magnifier users, as they obscure a large proportion of the page even > at relatively low magnification levels. > > So I have users very much in mind when I recommend that 'title' attributes > should be used as little as possible. > > Steve > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of James Jeffery > Sent: 18 November 2007 10:32 > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check > > On Nov 18, 2007 1:19 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Jeffery wrote: > > >> Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see > > >> an issue here. > > > > > > The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and > > > accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around > > > accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. > > > > But his links don't need it in this case. > > > > So your saying that before a user reads the content of the home page they > are expected to know whats on the "My Project" page? Keep in mind users who > use assistive devices to browse the web might find it very difficult to > navigate to other pages. You could sum up the page contents in the title so > it saves the user clicking the link. > > Adding clarity when possibly needed is a good thing. > > > > > *** > 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] AccessResearch // Page Check
People with assistive technologies rarely benefit from 'title' attributes. They are not displayed by text browsers, they are not accessible using keyboard navigation (or devices that emulate keyboards) and they are not read by screen readers with default settings. They are only accessible to someone who uses a mouse and can hover it over the link, in which case it is not particularly difficult to go the extra step and click it. On top of that, excessive use of tooltips of any kind causes an obstacle for screen magnifier users, as they obscure a large proportion of the page even at relatively low magnification levels. So I have users very much in mind when I recommend that 'title' attributes should be used as little as possible. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Jeffery Sent: 18 November 2007 10:32 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check On Nov 18, 2007 1:19 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Jeffery wrote: > >> Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see > >> an issue here. > > > > The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and > > accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around > > accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. > > But his links don't need it in this case. > So your saying that before a user reads the content of the home page they are expected to know whats on the "My Project" page? Keep in mind users who use assistive devices to browse the web might find it very difficult to navigate to other pages. You could sum up the page contents in the title so it saves the user clicking the link. Adding clarity when possibly needed is a good thing. *** 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] AccessResearch // Page Check
On Nov 18, 2007 1:19 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Jeffery wrote: > >> Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an > >> issue here. > > > > The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and > > accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around > > accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. > > But his links don't need it in this case. > So your saying that before a user reads the content of the home page they are expected to know whats on the "My Project" page? Keep in mind users who use assistive devices to browse the web might find it very difficult to navigate to other pages. You could sum up the page contents in the title so it saves the user clicking the link. Adding clarity when possibly needed is a good thing. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
> http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ > > I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an > accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or > think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general > suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; > does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? I just had a look using IE6. Some of the drop-caps (class="oops") are slightly chopped off at the top (looks a little strange but still readable and the overall layout is intact) When I make the browser window small the "Contact" block at the bottom drops below the "Home" block (it doesn't in Firefox) but it doesn't look too bad. (often that kind of thing in IE is a problem but in this case it looks ok) I also had a quick look with lynx It looks ok - quite usable on lynx. (using lynx is good quick way to see what a page looks like on a browser that has no css, table, image, javascript or mouse support). > James Jeffery wrote: > - Class and ID names are not semantic. id="left" would make no sense > if you moved it to the right. Good point. > - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they > would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the > navigation to the right. I get the impression he did that deliberately as a statement of visual design (which if it doesn't affect usability can be somewhat a matter of taste) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. You always do good work. And there is the opportunity, with this site, to take a passive rather than aggressive stance. Either way, I wish you well... Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well. --Mahatma Gandhi Best, ~dL -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Ah shoot, mixed up my footnotes. I need some tea. Apologies to all for increasing your inbox count. The Ragged Float technique used by Stu Nicholls on CSS Play is located here: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/flow.html The WSG article on using xHTML versus using HTML is located here: http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/ Sorry! - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
On 18-Nov-07, at 5:06 AM, James Jeffery wrote: He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Thanks for catching this one James. I did forget to add an abbreviation for this. I have updated the page. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
On 18-Nov-07, at 1:18 AM, James Jeffery wrote: - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the element. I like misusing me some ems! Seriously, though, yes. I am using a technique that I saw on Stu Nicholls site, CSS Play [1], which uses ems. Using a , or a tag seems to not work as well -- would another element work? - Missing title attribute from your anchor's I definitely will add in titles for some of the links. I suppose things like 'Contact' are self-explanatory, while others, like FAQ do require further elaboration. - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. Hmmm. I suppose I could be more explicit about this. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. It is not so much a case of preferring one over the other, but of using the one that seemed more logical. This article [1], while old, seems to have most of my reasons. However, I have barely read anything on this issue, so I would welcome a clarification. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id="left" would make no sense if you moved it to the right. While in a multi-author, frequently updated site, semantic class names are useful, on a small site such as mine, I think that they are not really a case for concern. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. Definitely a point that I will consider. I'm playing around with the site, having a little fun. I thought that it looked nicer, but I will definitely try a strictly left-aligned version. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. I will definitely work on this some more. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James Thanks a lot, for taking the time to look through the site, Regards, - Rahul. [1] http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an issue here. The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. But his links don't need it in this case. He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Just because we can understand it perfectly dont assume everyone can. Adding an ABBR is different from saying "missing title attribute on anchors". -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
>Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an >issue here. The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Just because we can understand it perfectly dont assume everyone can. >Why not? Who says he *should* use HTML? Sounds a bit blindly dogmatic to >me here... XHTML "was" going to become a replacement for HTML which is the reason why everyone jumped on the XHTML wagon. Its a misconception that XHTML has greater "benefits" then HTML, apart from the fact it forces the developer to follow strict XML syntax rules. Any good developer can use HTML correctly. The way i see it is if you have no use for XHTML and your only using it because you 'believe' its better then there is no need to use it. Each to there own i guess but when i see a developer using HTML and the markup is perfect i will give him credit. When i see someone misusing elements in an XHTML document; they get no credit. James On Nov 17, 2007 9:18 PM, Kevin Lennon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Jeffery wrote: > - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the > element. > > - Missing title attribute from your anchor's > > - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or > name. > > - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should > be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does > not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do > they would not be working towards HTML5. > > - Class and ID names are not semantic. id="left" would make no sense > if you moved it to the right. > > - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they > would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the > navigation to the right. > > I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try > making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some > natural flow and order. > > There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. > > James > > On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ > > I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an > accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or > think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general > suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; > does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? > > This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a > criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I > would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the > various IE-editions that don't support it. > > Many thanks, > - Rahul. > > Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. > > > *** > 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] > *** > > > The following statement was from above I only partially agree with. > > > Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should > be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does > not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do > they would not be working towards HTML5. > > While there is no real reason to use XHTML if you are not using any XML > related code . If you do a little research on HTML you would see that the > W3C has only within the past year or so announced they were even going to > consider extending HTML beyond 4.01. Even so HTML 5 will not be a standard > for several years based on the speed of the W3C in the past. XHTML is here > now to stay and offers a far greater amount of expandability in the future > towards web applications then HTML can ever consider comparing to especially > with all the WEB 2.0 hype out here. > > That announcement was only after Microsoft blatantly stated the Internet > Explorer Browser would never support the mime type of application-xml and > therefore would only interpret XHTML pages as a text/html. It was at that > time also that the W3C appointed the head engineer to the committee to > expand on HTML in the first place. > > I may not
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the element. - Missing title attribute from your anchor's - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id="left" would make no sense if you moved it to the right. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** 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] *** The following statement was from above I only partially agree with. Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. While there is no real reason to use XHTML if you are not using any XML related code . If you do a little research on HTML you would see that the W3C has only within the past year or so announced they were even going to consider extending HTML beyond 4.01. Even so HTML 5 will not be a standard for several years based on the speed of the W3C in the past. XHTML is here now to stay and offers a far greater amount of expandability in the future towards web applications then HTML can ever consider comparing to especially with all the WEB 2.0 hype out here. That announcement was only after Microsoft blatantly stated the Internet Explorer Browser would never support the mime type of application-xml and therefore would only interpret XHTML pages as a text/html. It was at that time also that the W3C appointed the head engineer to the committee to expand on HTML in the first place. I may not post as often as some or even have the knowledge of many of the members on this list however, I believe if Microsoft would have stood behind XHTML with their browsers like Firefox and Safari did HTML would certainly have been a dying markup language. It would be nice if the standards were all equally supported among the browsers but they are not. It would also be nice if there was a way to force web standards compliance on every website on the web old or new but that will never happen. The best society can hope for is if businesses get educated and require it of their web designers and programmers it may one day become an actual standard. I do not think that will happen in my lifetime personally but we can all dream I guess. As it stands now there seems to be too many people out there that think the standards are not nearly as important as if a website looks pretty to the eye. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Kevin Lennon n:Lennon;Kevin org:Lake Area Webs adr:;;227 Fire Tower Road;Milford;PA;18337;United States of America email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Web Design & Developer tel;home:570-296-3865 url:http
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
>> http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ James Jeffery wrote: - Missing title attribute from your anchor's Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an issue here. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. Why not? Who says he *should* use HTML? Sounds a bit blindly dogmatic to me here... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
- The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the element. - Missing title attribute from your anchor's - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id="left" would make no sense if you moved it to the right. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ > > I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an > accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or > think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general > suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; > does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? > > This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a > criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I > would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the > various IE-editions that don't support it. > > Many thanks, > - Rahul. > > Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. > > > *** > 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] AccessResearch // Page Check
Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
