[WSG] 508 compliant dashboard
Hi Can you point me to a dashboard that is 508 compliant? We like the user to be able to: --move each individual dashboard within the webpage --minimize and maximize each individual dashboard. --choose which dashboards with the page the user would like. Thanks, Nancy Johnson - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:24:20 AM Subject: WSG Digest * WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST * From: Frank Palinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:29:27 +0200 Subject: RE: [WSG] Web Standards In Colleges and Universities Hi James, Tony has given you some great advice. If I may add to that, although it may be difficult depending on the circumstance, try to keep a cool head at all times. Your integrity comes first, backed up by your intellectual property. If it may help you in your studies, I can email you several Fast track tutorial project packages regarding the application of web standards and accessibility in various scenarios: Building Accessible Static Navigation with CSS Calling Accessible Context-Sensitive Help with Unobtrusive DOM/JavaScript Creating Accessible Tabular Data Tables Creating Auto-line Numbered Code Blocks These are free-of-charge, so don't worry about any kind of compensation. I write all code and content within the Visual Studio 2005 IDE Source Code Editors, so there's no extraneous code added to the HTML, CSS and DOM/JavaScript of a proprietary nature by a WYSIWYG authoring environment. I'll be presenting these at the next WritersUA Annual conference in March 2008 at Portland, Oregon, USA. Please let me know, and I'll be happy to send them. Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help W3C HTML Working Group (H.T.M.L.W.G.) - Invited Expert M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+ Senior Technical Communicator Web Standards Accessibility Designer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Jeffery Sent: Saturday, 20 October, 2007 12:00 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Web Standards In Colleges and Universities Thanks Toney. Most of the documents we are handed from the tutor are grammatically wrong and contain a huge amount of spelling errors, such as: Place the curser over the table cell click ok when you done Im not sure who is writing them, but again, another issue. I will have a private chat with him, and see what he says. Im all for pushing Web Standards forward, and when i see a college in Birmingham (thats classed as on of the best) teaching outdated methods it makes me angry for both the industry and for the thousands of students. It may not be his fault, your right. James On 10/20/07, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Oct 2007, at 10:18, James Jeffery wrote: Should i use my essay and examples and take it to the head of the college? I really don't know how to go about this, but its definatly a problem. Who set the syllabus? Assuming it's the college administration, then they are the people to discuss your concerns with. don't assume the tutor is at fault. have a private chat with him, if he truly isn't aware of web standards, then you can tell him that you will be speaking to the college administration about the syllabus being taught and its shortcomings. if he is aware, but is bound by the syllabus, then you may find an ally in your quest. either way, have the private chat, challenging him in front of class, is bound to create a defensive stance from him. if the syllabus is wrong (as it appears to be) work your way through the college administration, explaining that the methods being taught are wrong and using this as support for your case: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government it/web guidelines/ consultations.aspx In order to meet European objectives for inclusive e-government and so that the UK public sector meets its obligations with regards to disability legislation, we have proposed that all government websites must meet Level Double-A of the W3C guidelines by December 2008. Government websites are strongly recommended to develop an accessibility policy to aid the planning and procurement of inclusive websites. This includes building a business case, analysing user needs, developing an accessibility test plan and procuring accessible content authoring tools. The guidance covers some of the design solutions to common problems faced by users but is mainly aimed at strategic managers and project managers to assist with planning and procurement. try not to be adversarial, you'll get a better response with a can you explain why we are learning outdated methods approach. hth and good luck...
Re: [WSG] 508??
Late to the party, I know. Isn't that always the way? * From: J Rodgers Ontario (where I am) has the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) but it lacks any real teeth and doesn't suggest anything specifi Provincial-government sites must be accessible; this is interpreted as meaning Priority 2. It's easy to find pages that flunk, of course. I think (not entirely sure) in Canada there is the wild card - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have heard a few discussions about how inaccessible websites violate people's rights in Canada, but to my knowledge no court cases yet. None. And you'd start probably with a human-rights complaint (Cf. Maguire). The other problem of validators is annoying as well. I was sitting in Tim Hortons in Toronto with Joe Clark listening to him go on how validators can't tell you want you have done right, only what you have done wrong, but even then they are inaccurate - when I thought, this is madness (and no it wasn't just because Joe was ranting) and I haven't seen anything in the past year or so to make me think otherwise. The only time I have sat in a Tim Horton['s] in the last two years was after the Ryerson presentation. http://joeclark.org/tus/ And there is absolutely no way I was talking about validators; I'm sure I was talking about automated accessibility testers like Bobby. However, since span class=paragraph and p are both valid HTML, even the validator can't always tell you when you're making a mistake. -- Joe Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Accessibility http://joeclark.org/access/ Expect criticism if you top-post ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] 508??
Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? Yes I work closely with our Office for Persons with Disabilities, even presented at their Assistive Technology Fair last year. This year I will as well and sounds like it will be even bigger than last year. There are some very cool technologies out there. England and the other countries requiring accessible web sites state 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web sites. So, how can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other governments are saying it isn't enough? Not saying it was an end-all, just saying it was a decent place to start. At the very least it is forcing a lot of software developers and web designers to think accessible design. AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines they have to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the working group. Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting standards better than they do. And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape has begun to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close to trying any longer. That is likely the biggest problem with Assistive technology, it relies on other over priced bloat ware that is unstable at the best of times and refuses to follow any standards properly. Why not move to Moz? Why build Assistive technologies for Linux where you have more control? Oh that is rhetorical. One thing I did notice with a lot of Assistive Technologies is that they rely heavily on Microsoft. I think that is a shame. Jesse * 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] 508??
Jesse, I'll agree it makes them think about it for about ... 10 seconds. Then they go and start using those automated evaluators and mess it all up. I've used every evaluator there is and none come as close to meeting my experience as I would like. You can pass those automated test very easily and then totally ignore some very important elements. One accessibility presentation I went to had a company representative look like a fool when he was showing how JAWS worked with their pages. The designer passed all the automated tests, but failed to lineate the table correctly so JAWS was jumping all around the screen reading things out of order. Yep, Bobby said it passed - Bobby lied too. Yes, much of the Assistive Technology relies upon Microsoft. Didn't you realize that Microsoft doesn't allow anyone access to their core functions? Oh, that's last millennia's news. We should fire the federal judges that ruled in favor of Microsoft. They just gave too much power to Microsoft and I'm not talking their anti-competitive attitudes. I'm talking embedding their browser further into their operating systems. It's going to get to the point that their browser will enable any web site to take control of the computer again ... just like when we used to cause hard drive formats. Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. I realize Canada falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that Canada had to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, although not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more accessibility than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I like to keep up with how other countries are handling the issues. Thanks, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 5:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? Yes I work closely with our Office for Persons with Disabilities, even presented at their Assistive Technology Fair last year. This year I will as well and sounds like it will be even bigger than last year. There are some very cool technologies out there. England and the other countries requiring accessible web sites state 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web sites. So, how can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other governments are saying it isn't enough? Not saying it was an end-all, just saying it was a decent place to start. At the very least it is forcing a lot of software developers and web designers to think accessible design. AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines they have to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the working group. Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting standards better than they do. And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape has begun to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close to trying any longer. That is likely the biggest problem with Assistive technology, it relies on other over priced bloat ware that is unstable at the best of times and refuses to follow any standards properly. Why not move to Moz? Why build Assistive technologies for Linux where you have more control? Oh that is rhetorical. One thing I did notice with a lot of Assistive Technologies is that they rely heavily on Microsoft. I think that is a shame. Jesse * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Actually Canada has to accessibility requirements under any law. The Canadian Government has the Common Look and Feel Guidelines and in there they require WAI AA for all Federal Government sites (government workers in Canada correct me please). http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-nsi/index_e.asp Ontario (where I am) has the Ontarian with Disabilities Act (2001) but it lacks any real teeth and doesn't suggest anything specific - for uni's we have to come up with a 'plan' and the community is to keep us to it. For UW I have just been promoting the idea of standard code and accessible design and worked with many students with disabilities to determine what features they would like to see. Luckily our pages are mountains of text and static pages... Students use Google to get around and are relatively happy with our pages even though we have done little to make them accessible in the past. It is more a responsibility to the community that is motivating our move to accessible design. I think (not entirely sure) in Canada there is the wild card - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have heard a few discussions about how inaccessible websites violate people's rights in Canada, but to my knowledge no court cases yet. It would only take one court case though, and the tide would shift in Canada. Accessible design consultants are just waiting for that I imagine ;) So how does Section 508 effect us? It doesn't. But it is of particular interest since I have seen a couple of the people that worked on it present at conferences. I am not a huge fan of the WCAG, nor am I a fan of those who preach strict adherence without first providing a guide for those who don't understand. The other problem of validators is annoying as well. I was sitting in Tim Hortons in Toronto with Joe Clark listening to him go on how validators can't tell you want you have done right, only what you have done wrong, but even then they are inaccurate - when I thought, this is madness (and no it wasn't just because Joe was ranting) and I haven't seen anything in the past year or so to make me think otherwise. Jesse On 6/30/04 8:47 AM, Lee Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. I realize Canada falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that Canada had to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, although not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more accessibility than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I like to keep up with how other countries are handling the issues. * 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] 508??
That should probably read - 'does not have' - I am fine specimen of the new and improved public education system in Canada ;) I apologize for the bad grammar and typos and place the blame on my 5th grade teacher. Jesse On 6/30/04 9:19 AM, J Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually Canada has to accessibility * 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] 508??
Section 508 wouldn't exist if it weren't for WCAG. If you can do Section 508 then step up to the plate and do the remainder. Take the extra step, you'll find it's a lot easier. It simply requires opening our minds to the possibilities. Regardless of what some say, Flash is not accessible and never will be. Anything that requires a person to use Microsoft technologies has no regard for the needs of the disabled. Joe definitely does do that at times, but he means well. If I'm in a crunch, I'll use WebQA to get my bearings. However, when it comes to in depth reviews on a page by page basis, I never use automated tools. I review the codes and if need be, I change the border of the tables to border=1 so I see how the text lays out. I've been doing accessibility since 1998. Thank you for explaining Canada's rules. I had thought they required AA, but didn't want to err. Sincerely, Lee Roberts http://www.applepiecart.com http://www.roserockdesign.com -Original Message- From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Actually Canada has to accessibility requirements under any law. The Canadian Government has the Common Look and Feel Guidelines and in there they require WAI AA for all Federal Government sites (government workers in Canada correct me please). http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-nsi/index_e.asp Ontario (where I am) has the Ontarian with Disabilities Act (2001) but it lacks any real teeth and doesn't suggest anything specific - for uni's we have to come up with a 'plan' and the community is to keep us to it. For UW I have just been promoting the idea of standard code and accessible design and worked with many students with disabilities to determine what features they would like to see. Luckily our pages are mountains of text and static pages... Students use Google to get around and are relatively happy with our pages even though we have done little to make them accessible in the past. It is more a responsibility to the community that is motivating our move to accessible design. I think (not entirely sure) in Canada there is the wild card - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have heard a few discussions about how inaccessible websites violate people's rights in Canada, but to my knowledge no court cases yet. It would only take one court case though, and the tide would shift in Canada. Accessible design consultants are just waiting for that I imagine ;) So how does Section 508 effect us? It doesn't. But it is of particular interest since I have seen a couple of the people that worked on it present at conferences. I am not a huge fan of the WCAG, nor am I a fan of those who preach strict adherence without first providing a guide for those who don't understand. The other problem of validators is annoying as well. I was sitting in Tim Hortons in Toronto with Joe Clark listening to him go on how validators can't tell you want you have done right, only what you have done wrong, but even then they are inaccurate - when I thought, this is madness (and no it wasn't just because Joe was ranting) and I haven't seen anything in the past year or so to make me think otherwise. Jesse On 6/30/04 8:47 AM, Lee Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. I realize Canada falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that Canada had to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, although not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more accessibility than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I like to keep up with how other countries are handling the issues. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Hi, Lee would recommend a comprehensive accessibility text. I've scoured Amazon to the point of red eye, and have found nothing but how to pass Bobby. This text should include captioning of Quicktime, and other dynamic media considerations. C On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 05:47 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: Jesse, I'll agree it makes them think about it for about ... 10 seconds. Then they go and start using those automated evaluators and mess it all up. I've used every evaluator there is and none come as close to meeting my experience as I would like. You can pass those automated test very easily and then totally ignore some very important elements. One accessibility presentation I went to had a company representative look like a fool when he was showing how JAWS worked with their pages. The designer passed all the automated tests, but failed to lineate the table correctly so JAWS was jumping all around the screen reading things out of order. Yep, Bobby said it passed - Bobby lied too. Yes, much of the Assistive Technology relies upon Microsoft. Didn't you realize that Microsoft doesn't allow anyone access to their core functions? Oh, that's last millennia's news. We should fire the federal judges that ruled in favor of Microsoft. They just gave too much power to Microsoft and I'm not talking their anti-competitive attitudes. I'm talking embedding their browser further into their operating systems. It's going to get to the point that their browser will enable any web site to take control of the computer again ... just like when we used to cause hard drive formats. Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. I realize Canada falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that Canada had to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, although not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more accessibility than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I like to keep up with how other countries are handling the issues. Thanks, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 5:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? Yes I work closely with our Office for Persons with Disabilities, even presented at their Assistive Technology Fair last year. This year I will as well and sounds like it will be even bigger than last year. There are some very cool technologies out there. England and the other countries requiring accessible web sites state 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web sites. So, how can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other governments are saying it isn't enough? Not saying it was an end-all, just saying it was a decent place to start. At the very least it is forcing a lot of software developers and web designers to think accessible design. AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines they have to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the working group. Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting standards better than they do. And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape has begun to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close to trying any longer. That is likely the biggest problem with Assistive technology, it relies on other over priced bloat ware that is unstable at the best of times and refuses to follow any standards properly. Why not move to Moz? Why build Assistive technologies for Linux where you have more control? Oh that is rhetorical. One thing I did notice with a lot of Assistive Technologies is that they rely heavily on Microsoft. I think that is a shame. Jesse * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Despite some minor flaws, Joe Clark's Building Accessible Websites is still one of the best around. Captioning of quicktime (you mean via SMIL, I assume) is still not widely implemented due to flaky support in certain areas http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004AprJun/0651.html Of course, you'll never find a single ominous voiceComprehensive Accessibility Text/ominous voice, as the field is constantly evolving and changing. What you can get, though, is books covering the majority of the basis, and follow that up with good practice examples. They're out there, you just need to look in the right places (and frequent lists like the above featured WAI-IG, or forums such as www.accessifyforum.com for instance). Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk -Original Message- From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 June 2004 15:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Hi, Lee would recommend a comprehensive accessibility text. I've scoured Amazon to the point of red eye, and have found nothing but how to pass Bobby. This text should include captioning of Quicktime, and other dynamic media considerations. C On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 05:47 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: Jesse, I'll agree it makes them think about it for about ... 10 seconds. Then they go and start using those automated evaluators and mess it all up. I've used every evaluator there is and none come as close to meeting my experience as I would like. You can pass those automated test very easily and then totally ignore some very important elements. One accessibility presentation I went to had a company representative look like a fool when he was showing how JAWS worked with their pages. The designer passed all the automated tests, but failed to lineate the table correctly so JAWS was jumping all around the screen reading things out of order. Yep, Bobby said it passed - Bobby lied too. Yes, much of the Assistive Technology relies upon Microsoft. Didn't you realize that Microsoft doesn't allow anyone access to their core functions? Oh, that's last millennia's news. We should fire the federal judges that ruled in favor of Microsoft. They just gave too much power to Microsoft and I'm not talking their anti-competitive attitudes. I'm talking embedding their browser further into their operating systems. It's going to get to the point that their browser will enable any web site to take control of the computer again ... just like when we used to cause hard drive formats. Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. I realize Canada falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that Canada had to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, although not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more accessibility than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I like to keep up with how other countries are handling the issues. Thanks, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 5:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? Yes I work closely with our Office for Persons with Disabilities, even presented at their Assistive Technology Fair last year. This year I will as well and sounds like it will be even bigger than last year. There are some very cool technologies out there. England and the other countries requiring accessible web sites state 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web sites. So, how can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other governments are saying it isn't enough? Not saying it was an end-all, just saying it was a decent place to start. At the very least it is forcing a lot of software developers and web designers to think accessible design. AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines they have to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the working group. Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting standards better than they do. And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape has begun to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close to trying any longer. That is likely the biggest problem with Assistive technology, it relies on other over priced bloat ware that is unstable at the best of times and refuses to follow any standards properly. Why
Re: [WSG] 508??
Hi, Thanks I wasn't aware my question had ominous tones. Nonetheless, humble voice I appreciate your suggestion. /humble voice On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 08:04 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote: ominous voiceComprehensive Accessibility Text/ominous voice, as the field is constantly evolving and changing. What you can get, though, is books covering the majority of the basis, and follow that up with good practice examples. They're out there, you just need to look in the right places (and frequent lists like the above featured WAI-IG, or forums such as www.accessifyforum.com for instance). * 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] 508??
In an effort to not drown the list-serv with constant replies, let me use this single reply. Captioning of SMIL, Magpie or the like will always be a human reviewer test. There's no way an automated evaluator can test image presentation. Search engines can't do it and certainly a less costly program won't be able to. At least not at this point. Regrettably, the only thing automated evaluators can do is tell you where you have fouled up (sometimes) and where you need to check (sometimes). Like Joe Clark says, they can't tell you when you've done something right. The only thing that can tell you when you've done something correctly is through experience and testing. You'll be surprised at how easy it becomes once you learn the little tricks of the trade. Jesse, you might be interested in The Globe and Mail on June 16, 2004. I think that's Canada's national newspaper. There's an article about accessible web sites, namely about YouSearched.com. I hope this was of some help. Sincerely, Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.com -Original Message- From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Hi, Thanks I wasn't aware my question had ominous tones. Nonetheless, humble voice I appreciate your suggestion. /humble voice On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 08:04 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote: ominous voiceComprehensive Accessibility Text/ominous voice, as the field is constantly evolving and changing. What you can get, though, is books covering the majority of the basis, and follow that up with good practice examples. They're out there, you just need to look in the right places (and frequent lists like the above featured WAI-IG, or forums such as www.accessifyforum.com for instance). * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
I think Judy Brewer, the Director of WAI hit the nail on the head when she said: In no case can automated Web accessibility evaluation tools determine conformance to all WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints at a given priority level. Therefore, manual evaluation by a knowledgeable expert using a variety of approaches is always an essential aspect of any conformance evaluation. Her full article Web Accessibility Highlights and Trends, 18 May 2004, is available from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/990657.990667 cheers Iza [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/07/04 5:33 In an effort to not drown the list-serv with constant replies, let me use this single reply. Captioning of SMIL, Magpie or the like will always be a human reviewer test. There's no way an automated evaluator can test image presentation. Search engines can't do it and certainly a less costly program won't be able to. At least not at this point. Regrettably, the only thing automated evaluators can do is tell you where you have fouled up (sometimes) and where you need to check (sometimes). Like Joe Clark says, they can't tell you when you've done something right. The only thing that can tell you when you've done something correctly is through experience and testing. You'll be surprised at how easy it becomes once you learn the little tricks of the trade. Jesse, you might be interested in The Globe and Mail on June 16, 2004. I think that's Canada's national newspaper. There's an article about accessible web sites, namely about YouSearched.com. I hope this was of some help. Sincerely, Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.com -Original Message- From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Hi, Thanks I wasn't aware my question had ominous tones. Nonetheless, humble voice I appreciate your suggestion. /humble voice On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 08:04 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote: ominous voiceComprehensive Accessibility Text/ominous voice, as the field is constantly evolving and changing. What you can get, though, is books covering the majority of the basis, and follow that up with good practice examples. They're out there, you just need to look in the right places (and frequent lists like the above featured WAI-IG, or forums such as www.accessifyforum.com for instance). * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Would someone please explain why the WSG thinks Section 508 is what should be used? Thanks, Lee Roberts * 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] 508??
Lee Roberts spoke the following wise words on 29/06/2004 11:43 PM EST: Would someone please explain why the WSG thinks Section 508 is what should be used? Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. -- tim * 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] 508??
Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. -- tim 508 is this, http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1runcr=1url1=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ Conformance to web accessability standards produced by the W3C. Basically those ponts there tell you wats required for 508 compliance. Its a first and simple step. t94xr http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ * 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] 508??
Would someone please explain why the WSG thinks Section 508 is what should be used? Don't know what you're talking about, but http://www.google.com/search?q=section+508 gives: http://www.section508.gov/ Might be what you're looking for. -- Willemot Michaël http://www.sotto.be * 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] 508??
Well, seems we got the thread going at least. Section 508 is a lame attempt to meet accessibility needs. If you look at what's going on around the world - England, Italy, European Union, Australia and other countries - you'll see it's lame. Section 508 picked and chose which elements they thought was correct without even attempting to understand the problems faced by assistive technologies. Section 508 has elements from Priority 2 and Priority 3 while skipping some elements from Priority 1. Now, that's interesting - they skip required elements in lieu of lower priority elements. I've reviewed a few people's web sites and found they were claiming conformance to Section 508. So, that's the reason for my question. t94xr states, Its a first and simple step. How can Section 508 be a first and simple step? While WCAG2 is still in the works, I participate in the working group, it still has some very strong concepts that will help you with accessibility. You'll notice that some of the Priority 2 and Priority 3 elements have been made more important. That's because in 1998 and 1999 there were many things we didn't understand about assistive technology and many things assistive technology couldn't handle. Since WCAG1 we now have User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) and even accessibility guidelines for developing XML documents. A lot of advancements have been made. I would highly suggest you skip bragging about Section 508 or even attempting to conform with it. Rather develop your conformance to higher standards. Even on the Oklahoma Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Task Force, which I'm a member, we took Section 508 as our base rules and advanced beyond it. Many States have done the same including Missouri and Illinois. If you're clients are going to do anything internationally, don't even think about returning with Section 508 conformance. All it takes is one large company from the U.S. to be sued in a foreign country and the playing field will be altered so quickly it will make your head spin. I hope this wasn't too long winded. I have a fond appreciation for accessibility and for the standards. I'm glad this organization does as well. Best Regards, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] 508?? Tim knows that. What Tim was asking was: what on earth is the thread starter asking when he says Would someone please explain why the WSG thinks Section 508 is what should be used? I'd be interested in what on earth he's talking about as well, coincidentally... Patrick -Original Message- From: t94xr.net.nz webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 29/06/2004 15:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. -- tim 508 is this, http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1runcr=1url 1=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ Conformance to web accessability standards produced by the W3C. Basically those ponts there tell you wats required for 508 compliance. Its a first and simple step. t94xr http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * Nnvy jq?z * 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] 508??
Hi, Are these expanded rules mentioned available to the public? C On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 09:49 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: Even on the Oklahoma Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Task Force, which I'm a member, we took Section 508 as our base rules and advanced beyond it. Many States have done the same including Missouri and Illinois. * 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] 508??
Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. -- tim 508 is this, http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1runcr=1url1=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ Conformance to web accessability standards produced by the W3C. Basically those ponts there tell you wats required for 508 compliance. Its a first and simple step. t94xr http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with accessibility is the lack of affordable assistive technologies (AT)? I think W3 complaint code mixed with some decent features should be all that is required on the developers end. The government would be better off spending more time and resources on supporting the development of text readers (lynx with a freaky voice) that do not cost $2500 a seat. You will note some the latest version of Jaws can handle junk code pretty well - no excuse for junk code mind you - but there has to be some middle ground. The problem with the WCAG is it's so academic, at least section 508 made an attempt to quantify exactly what makes a site accessible and encourages AT creators along with Dreamweaver-esque CMS developers to conform to something they can understand. Who is encouraging the AT developers to support web standards? Bah.. Jaws is really starting to freak me out. Jesse On 6/29/04 12:49 PM, Lee Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section 508 picked and chose which elements they thought was correct without even attempting to understand the problems faced by assistive technologies. Section 508 has elements from Priority 2 and Priority 3 while skipping some elements from Priority 1. Now, that's interesting - they skip required elements in lieu of lower priority elements. * 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] 508??
Longdesc points to another file with the longer description. It is not to be used as a place for a long sentence. Therefore this is incorrect: img src=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/private/slingshot.jpg; alt= longdesc=An image that shows that i have downloaded 2.4GB on 56k dialup in a month. / http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#long-descriptions When a short text equivalent does not suffice to adequately convey the function or role of an image, provide additional information in a file designated by the longdesc attribute: Example. IMG src=97sales.gif alt=Sales for 1997 longdesc=sales97.html In sales97.html: A chart showing how sales in 1997 progressed. The chart is a bar-chart showing percentage increases in sales by month. Sales in January were up 10% from December 1996, sales in February dropped 3%, .. You're better off putting that long sentence in your ALT attribute. So, while you're compliant with Section 508 you're images are not accessible. As now represented, Section 508 does not meet the requirements I would think members of the WSG would want to support. There are other instances. Now, I'm curious ... what is this? a href=terms.phptamp;c/a Looking at the code I can tell it's terms and conditions but if I were blind I'd have no idea what tc represents. Just something else those automated systems don't check - including Cynthia Says. And visually I would have questions about some of these elements: tc | xhtml css 508 cc aaa. Looking at your titles I can see you claim conformance to WCAG1 AAA. Unfortunately, Bobby doesn't appear to think so. Let me invite you to review the ISO HTML Standards and have fun with those. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.HTML Thank you for the opportunity to review your site. I really enjoyed it. Before anyone points fingers, I will also be redesigning my site again. I need to get it back to being accessible like I preach and teach. Sincerely, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: t94xr.net.nz webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. -- tim 508 is this, http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1runcr=1url 1=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ Conformance to web accessability standards produced by the W3C. Basically those ponts there tell you wats required for 508 compliance. Its a first and simple step. t94xr http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
I will agree that JAWS is an over-priced piece of software. IBM HomePage Reader is much more reasonable. But, then again Lynx with voice would be good as well. Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? England and the other countries requiring accessible web sites state 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web sites. So, how can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other governments are saying it isn't enough? AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines they have to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the working group. Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting standards better than they do. And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape has begun to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close to trying any longer. Thanks for the feedback. Sincerely, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Perhaps one of the biggest problems with accessibility is the lack of affordable assistive technologies (AT)? I think W3 complaint code mixed with some decent features should be all that is required on the developers end. The government would be better off spending more time and resources on supporting the development of text readers (lynx with a freaky voice) that do not cost $2500 a seat. You will note some the latest version of Jaws can handle junk code pretty well - no excuse for junk code mind you - but there has to be some middle ground. The problem with the WCAG is it's so academic, at least section 508 made an attempt to quantify exactly what makes a site accessible and encourages AT creators along with Dreamweaver-esque CMS developers to conform to something they can understand. Who is encouraging the AT developers to support web standards? Bah.. Jaws is really starting to freak me out. Jesse On 6/29/04 12:49 PM, Lee Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section 508 picked and chose which elements they thought was correct without even attempting to understand the problems faced by assistive technologies. Section 508 has elements from Priority 2 and Priority 3 while skipping some elements from Priority 1. Now, that's interesting - they skip required elements in lieu of lower priority elements. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
The standards are available at these locations. Missouri: http://www.dolir.state.mo.us/matp/ITAccessibilityStatute.htm Illinois: http://www.illinois.gov/iwas/standards/iwasStandards.cfm I hope this helps. Sincerely, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Hi, Are these expanded rules mentioned available to the public? C On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 09:49 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: Even on the Oklahoma Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Task Force, which I'm a member, we took Section 508 as our base rules and advanced beyond it. Many States have done the same including Missouri and Illinois. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508??
Hi, Looking forward to the enhanced view. Thanks for the timely reply. C On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 07:32 PM, Lee Roberts wrote: The standards are available at these locations. Missouri: http://www.dolir.state.mo.us/matp/ITAccessibilityStatute.htm Illinois: http://www.illinois.gov/iwas/standards/iwasStandards.cfm I hope this helps. Sincerely, Lee Roberts -Original Message- From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? Hi, Are these expanded rules mentioned available to the public? C On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 09:49 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: Even on the Oklahoma Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Task Force, which I'm a member, we took Section 508 as our base rules and advanced beyond it. Many States have done the same including Missouri and Illinois. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] 508 Awareness Link and Technology Standards Link
~ 508 Awareness Web Site http://www.section508.gov/508Awareness/ The entire site can be downloaded as a pdf. Useful, and informative. ~ Kicking around for a while. New to me. Useful and informative. Weaving a Secure Web around Education: A Guide to Technology Standards and Security (pdf 1,119 KB) http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003381.pdf Description and download page: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003381 ~ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
