Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-02-01 Thread Stuart Foulstone
I have a chicken - explain how to make it into an egg.

On Sun, January 31, 2010 11:46 pm, Andrew Stewart wrote:
 Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made
 accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?

 On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:31, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org
 [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud

 I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage.
 They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on
 elements
 that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input.
 If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be
 much
 better.


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com







 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***




 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Jason Grant
@Dani
Well observed. I am using WordPress presets here. Not had much time
'proving' my accessibility skills on Semantix Blog, however feel free
to find such issues on Flexewebs.com.

@Peter Mount
I am not saying 'Accessibility does not matter!', I was asking a
question rather. I don't have an argument to say not providing
accessible solution for target audience is ever good. However, you lot
may have a great site for a desktop user, but I (not a disabled user)
will be looking at it via BlackBerry and it has a kak user experience
(poor usability). Verdict: fail (in my view). Accessibility = good,
usability = 0. Overall, fail.

@Matthew Pennell
You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken
(right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse
(with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that
right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left
hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed.

What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a
colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off
until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand
is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager
typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time
essentially).

So in practice what happens is that (as a practical example) a Large
PLC I worked for wanted to enable a 10 minute pension processing time
per claim, as opposed to 30-40 minutes per claim. Even able bodied
people had a problem meeting this target let alone someone with a
broken wrist or who was permanently disable. In practice what happens
in commercial environments is that people get assigned to roles which
they can fulfil considering the disability they have.

You might see this as discrimination, and I do too to a great extent,
but it's the reality we live in. I think that legislation in UK also
states that if an employee deems the person not to be able to do the
job within expected targets, they have the right to refuse him/her
work. It's just the way it is.

Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have
another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.)
is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC
looks at it is that 'we just won't employ disabled people for this
role as they will not be able to meet our targets anyway - we will
sign-post them to another role they can do'.

Also Matthew can you show me some of the (best) work you have done in
the past please? What's your personal website address? You seem to be
very quick to judge me and my abilities, but your arguments sound
pretty weak as they are not rooted in reality I have observed in the
last 10 years working with various PLCs, local and Central Government
in UK, number of small sites as well as coding my own web apps in
spare time.

Thanks,

Jason

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Pennell
matthewpenn...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote:

 @Thierry
 I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?

 Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not
 keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it?

 Now you've exposed your naivety, I suggest you let the good people of this
 thread educate you so you can create better work in the future. :)

 - Matthew

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***



-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 @Matthew Pennell
 You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken
 (right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse
 (with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that
 right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left
 hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed.

For many people, it is difficult to use the mouse with their other hand. It
is even more difficult when a site offers very small clickable areas, pure
CSS menus, etc. Things that your intranet users could be facing since you've
ignored to implement basic usability/accessibility features.
Also, if you can only use one hand, then it is better to keep it on the
keyboard rather than switching back and forth between the keyboard and the
mouse (you're more productive that way).
Anyway, I have another one for you: one of the rep of your company is on the
road, he logs to your Intranet to find out that the trackpad on his laptop
is busted. What should he do next (beside taking some time off)?

 What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a
 colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off
 until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand
 is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager
 typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time
 essentially).

Let's say that the person injured is a guy who does not use a computer all
day, but he's a key player and many people rely on the data he keys in every
day. Do you still send this guy home?


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com








***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Jason Grant
@Thierry
I think keyboard accessibility is relatively easy thing to implement
as it tends to follow naturally if one uses even semi-decent semantic
HTML. It's not 'expensive' to implement. I would deem every browser
based solution a total fail if it didn't have keyboard accessibility
supported.

However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e.
unlikely). Laptop track pad is likely not to be an issue as for
example on my current laptop I have two onboard mice (trackpad and
nipple), but I use an external mouse. Therefore I have 3 mice
altogether. Chances of them all failing are minimal - virtually none.

Key players (in my experience) tend to dictate their work to their
secretaries and avoid using web tools as much as possible as they tend
to know that's not going to keep them ahead of the game (however much
we would like to think that 'tweeting is essentially for survival
today'). They still prefer verbalising over the phone or such likes
for some reason. I can't actually 'see' this example happening.

Intranets are usually used within larger organisations. Noone inside
larger organisations is irreplaceable in my experience. So your
example is simply strange to me in this scenario. Essentially if large
organisations were having major issues crop up because of
accessibility, they would do everything in their power to implement
(extra) accessibility for their intranets and web sites.

That's my experience to be honest.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 @Matthew Pennell
 You are confused with the 'broken wrist' issue. If I have a broken
 (right) wrist (I am right handed), I won't be able to use a mouse
 (with my right hand). I also won't be able to use keyboard with that
 right hand. My choice is to use the mouse or keyboard with the left
 hand. So your 'keyboard accessibility' example is highly flawed.

 For many people, it is difficult to use the mouse with their other hand. It
 is even more difficult when a site offers very small clickable areas, pure
 CSS menus, etc. Things that your intranet users could be facing since you've
 ignored to implement basic usability/accessibility features.
 Also, if you can only use one hand, then it is better to keep it on the
 keyboard rather than switching back and forth between the keyboard and the
 mouse (you're more productive that way).
 Anyway, I have another one for you: one of the rep of your company is on the
 road, he logs to your Intranet to find out that the trackpad on his laptop
 is busted. What should he do next (beside taking some time off)?

 What happens in practice (I can think of a circumstance where a
 colleague had a broken wrist at work) is that people take time off
 until they recover, since their work performance working with one hand
 is usually not good enough to be at work (think of a Project Manager
 typing a long report with one hand - it's not going to happen on time
 essentially).

 Let's say that the person injured is a guy who does not use a computer all
 day, but he's a key player and many people rely on the data he keys in every
 day. Do you still send this guy home?


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com








 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Andrew Stewart
Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this  
list do get too close to the accessibility at all cost point of view.


Lets take the example of google finance http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud 
 quite a cool site using flash and js to navigate quite a large  
amount of data (make sure you expand the slider at the bottom of the  
flash graph to change the time scale and see how the list of news  
articles on the right changes). How could this site be modified to be  
meaningfully controlled by using the keyboard alone? I would be very  
interested to hear people's opinions on the following points:


• is this site accessible? and if not, please give real examples of  
saying how it is hard for people with disabilities to use
• how could you make it more accessible without introducing a huge  
amount of extra work for the developers and without having an adverse  
effect for non-disabled users?


Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the  
internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned  
with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we  
have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that  
should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on  
creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do  
something about it.


Andy

--
a...@universalsprout.com

Andrew Stewart

Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113
London :: +44(0)7900 245 789

www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 31/01/2010 22:50, Andrew Stewart wrote:

Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet,
I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with
accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have
hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that should be
concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers
and operating systems because they can really do something about it.


Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't structure your content properly, 
add necessary hooks, and generally show basic awareness of what the 
problems are and circumvent them, there is no magical pixie-dust-powered 
technology in the browser or OS that can accessify your content.


And, for the last time, can we drop this whole accessibility = 
non-JavaScript solution according to WCAG 1 slant? WCAG 2 has been out 
for over a year now, and that's the yardstick we use. And yes, WCAG 2 
allows for scripting, or any other accessibility-supported technologies. 
But that still means that these technologies need to be used in a 
responsible and correct way...because that's the power over what the 
user sees.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 -Original Message-
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:40 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 @Thierry
 I think keyboard accessibility is relatively easy thing to implement
 as it tends to follow naturally if one uses even semi-decent semantic
 HTML. It's not 'expensive' to implement. I would deem every browser
 based solution a total fail if it didn't have keyboard accessibility
 supported.
 
 However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e.
 unlikely). Laptop track pad is likely not to be an issue as for
 example on my current laptop I have two onboard mice (trackpad and
 nipple), but I use an external mouse. Therefore I have 3 mice
 altogether. Chances of them all failing are minimal - virtually none.
 
 Key players (in my experience) tend to dictate their work to their
 secretaries and avoid using web tools as much as possible as they tend
 to know that's not going to keep them ahead of the game (however much
 we would like to think that 'tweeting is essentially for survival
 today'). They still prefer verbalising over the phone or such likes
 for some reason. I can't actually 'see' this example happening.
 
 Intranets are usually used within larger organisations. Noone inside
 larger organisations is irreplaceable in my experience. So your
 example is simply strange to me in this scenario. Essentially if large
 organisations were having major issues crop up because of
 accessibility, they would do everything in their power to implement
 (extra) accessibility for their intranets and web sites.
 
 That's my experience to be honest.

I guess you solve all the problems by:
- requiring one secretary per key player in the company
- requiring that everybody has at least 2 pointing devices (with spare
batteries as well)
- requiring that people give a 2 weeks heads up before getting injured
(because even if nobody is irreplaceable, transition costs big bucks)

Anyway, I think the discussion is getting silly/absurd...


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 31/01/2010 21:05, Jason Grant wrote:

Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have
another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.)
is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC
looks at it is that 'we just won't employ disabled people for this
role as they will not be able to meet our targets anyway - we will
sign-post them to another role they can do'.


Which, in the UK, is a very clear-cut case of discrimination. The DDA 
mandates reasonable adjustments in the workplace, which should normally 
be taken pre-emptively. The 'we just won't employ disabled people for 
this role is a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Andrew Stewart
My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours  
displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes  
the whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much  
better solution than spending hours removing reds/greens etc from your  
site because it can be adjusted for specific users and will work with  
every website/application.


But to go back to the main concrete point of my email - is google  
finance accessible? - and if it isn't please explain how. Whilst there  
are no-javascript and no-flash versions of google finance they are  
such a poor imitation of the full site, I don't think they really  
count. Yes they display the same information but not in a usable manner.


Andy

--
a...@universalsprout.com

Andrew Stewart

Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113
London :: +44(0)7900 245 789

www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout

On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:10, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:


On 31/01/2010 22:50, Andrew Stewart wrote:
Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the  
internet,

I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with
accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have
hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that  
should be
concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating  
browsers

and operating systems because they can really do something about it.


Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't structure your content  
properly, add necessary hooks, and generally show basic awareness of  
what the problems are and circumvent them, there is no magical pixie- 
dust-powered technology in the browser or OS that can accessify  
your content.


And, for the last time, can we drop this whole accessibility = non- 
JavaScript solution according to WCAG 1 slant? WCAG 2 has been out  
for over a year now, and that's the yardstick we use. And yes, WCAG  
2 allows for scripting, or any other accessibility-supported  
technologies. But that still means that these technologies need to  
be used in a responsible and correct way...because that's the power  
over what the user sees.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this
 list do get too close to the accessibility at all cost point of view.
 
 Lets take the example of google finance
 http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud
   quite a cool site using flash and js to navigate quite a large
 amount of data (make sure you expand the slider at the bottom of the
 flash graph to change the time scale and see how the list of news
 articles on the right changes). How could this site be modified to be
 meaningfully controlled by using the keyboard alone? I would be very
 interested to hear people's opinions on the following points:
 
 . is this site accessible? and if not, please give real examples of
 saying how it is hard for people with disabilities to use
 . how could you make it more accessible without introducing a huge
 amount of extra work for the developers and without having an adverse
 effect for non-disabled users?
 
 Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the
 internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned
 with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we
 have hardly any power over what the user sees. The real people that
 should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on
 creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do
 something about it.

I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage. 
They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on elements
that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input. 
If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be much
better. 


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Andrew Stewart
Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made  
accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?


On 1 Feb 2010, at 10:31, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org  
[mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]

On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud


I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage.
They are removing outline on real links, but they leave it on  
elements

that don't trigger any behavior via keyboard input.
If they ignore such basics I don't expect the rest of the page to be  
much

better.


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made
accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?

The same ease of use?! 
Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;)

Besides that, did you look at the markup?
Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care.


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 31/01/2010 23:46, Andrew Stewart wrote:

Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made
accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?


Step one: make the flash itself keyboard accessible
http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+keyboard+access

Kbd users can then tab from one control to the next, and use arrow keys 
to move sliders left/right.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Jason Grant
@Thierry
Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).
Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
the HTML5 spec.

GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar
seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally
inaccessible.

I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their
AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where
'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean:
time, money and skill, as outlined in my article.

Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue
down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route?

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made
 accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?

 The same ease of use?!
 Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;)

 Besides that, did you look at the markup?
 Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care.


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Jason Grant
And while we are on the topic of Google, their UX principles are as follows:
http://www.google.com/corporate/ux.html
Please pay attention to points 6 and 7 carefully.
Thanks,
Jason

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote:
 @Thierry
 Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).
 Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
 Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
 the HTML5 spec.

 GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar
 seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally
 inaccessible.

 I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their
 AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where
 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean:
 time, money and skill, as outlined in my article.

 Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue
 down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route?

 On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz
 thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made
 accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use?

 The same ease of use?!
 Drop the mouse and give it a shot ;)

 Besides that, did you look at the markup?
 Deeply nested tables, DIVs in As... They just don't care.


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





 --
 Jason Grant BSc, MSc
 CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
 www.flexewebs.com
 ja...@flexewebs.com
 +44 (0)7748 591 770
 Company no.: 5587469

 www.flexewebs.com/semantix
 www.twitter.com/flexewebs
 www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs




-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 31/01/2010 23:23, Andrew Stewart wrote:

My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours
displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes the
whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much
better solution than spending hours removing reds/greens etc from your
site because it can be adjusted for specific users and will work with
every website/application.


So it's really not so much we have hardly any power over what the user 
sees, but rather I can't be bothered spending any time looking at the 
few most common colour combinations that can cause problems for users 
who are colour blind and avoiding those, so let the OS/Browser deal with 
it.


True, the OS/Browser/AT can work around your colour choices, but only if 
you implement them correctly. E.g. they can override colours you set in 
your CSS, but not in Flash, or in images. So again, you need to actually 
be aware how to build things properly. Simply saying that it shouldn't 
be your responsibility is not a carte blanche for not doing anything at all.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote:

@Thierry
Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).


Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason.


Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
the HTML5 spec.


And they're also part of the effort for accessibility
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments

Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is 
another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not 
give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.


Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I 
should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either?



I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their
AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where
'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean:
time, money and skill, as outlined in my article.


For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. 
It does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable 
(with keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc).



Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue
down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route?


Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and 
feel that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with 
actually understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, 
usable and accessible web development.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Andrew Maben

Please let this be the final word...

A

On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:


On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote:

@Thierry
Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).


Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason.


Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
the HTML5 spec.


And they're also part of the effort for accessibility
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments

Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked  
on is another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this  
does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.


Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout.  
Maybe I should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either?


I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why  
their

AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where
'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean:
time, money and skill, as outlined in my article.


For the last time: accessibility != making it work without  
JavaScript. It does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still  
accessible and usable (with keyboard, or screenreader, or screen  
magnifier, etc).


Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to  
continue

down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route?


Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off  
and feel that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can  
get on with actually understanding the implications of modern,  
standards-based, usable and accessible web development.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Jason Grant
@Patrick
You seem to be very 'touched' by these genuine remarks I am making.
You should not jump to a (very wrong) conclusion that I don't know
much about accessibility. I am very comfortable within the area having
worked on making a major e-commerce site fully Web2.0 and AAA
accessible and knowing exactly how much work there is to build
solutions which are both fully featured JS wise and accessible without
JS.

I think I have made it clear enough times so far that work-without-JS
is not the only accessibility issue I know of (I think that various
colour, font, sizing, etc. guidelines even the birds on the trees
understand and know by now and they are usually matters which can be
dealt with using semantic HTML and a few simple tweaks in CSS).

However, work-without-JS **is** a major development overhead when it
comes to developing web apps, and my argument (for the Nth time now)
is that in majority of the cases work-without-JS is not worth the
effort which example of both Google (e.g. Calendar) and Yahoo (e.g.
Flickr) exemplifies very well. Both corporations (however) will
evangelise at us how we need to make our solutions fully progressively
enhanced even theirs aren't.

You are not really addressing my points, you are simply always coming
back with: 'JS is not the only (accessibility) issue' and 'Jason is
ignorant' and so on. Come with something more concrete? A concrete
example perhaps? Do you have a web app which you have coded (on your
own) which is fully accessible with JS? If so, show us. If not, why
not? If not, do you really feel you should be so vocal in talking
about this issue since you are more than likely (in that circumstance)
to not fully be understanding what I am talking about?

I know I may be sounding a bit harsh, but the bottom line is that we
need to start getting real about some of these things I reckon.

By the way, I am not calling you ignorant or other names, since I
don't know you and generally have respect for other web devs, so I
think you ought to start using a more intellectual approach for the
sake of the list and not making yourself look less clever than you
actually are.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
re...@splintered.co.uk wrote:
 On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Thierry
 Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).

 Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason.

 Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
 Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
 the HTML5 spec.

 And they're also part of the effort for accessibility
 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments

 Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is
 another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not give
 you a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I
 should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either?

 I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their
 AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where
 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean:
 time, money and skill, as outlined in my article.

 For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. It
 does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable (with
 keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc).

 Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue
 down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route?

 Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and feel
 that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with actually
 understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, usable and
 accessible web development.

 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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
 __
 Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
 http://webstandards.org/
 __


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED

2010-01-31 Thread Russ Weakley
This discussion has been at times interesting (where there was healthy  
exchange of info) and worrying (when personal criticisms were used  
instead of calm discussions).


However, it looks like this thread has reached a point where we not  
gaining anything - just expressing disagreement.


So, unfortunately, it is time to move on.

THREAD CLOSED

Please do not continue this thread
Please do not reply to this email or any others in the thread
Please go about your business  :)

Thanks
Russ



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:24 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 @Thierry
 Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in
 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end).
 Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML?
 Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in
 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running'
 the HTML5 spec.
 
 GMail has an HTML only version which works OK, while Google calendar
 seems to have no alternative - with JS off the tool is totally
 inaccessible.

flash can be very accessible (as Patrick pointed out). And forget about JS
off, what's important is that it is accessible *with* JS. See Todd Kloots'
YUI presentation:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=kloots-yuiconf2009-a11y 


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com










***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-31 Thread Felix Miata
On 2010/01/31 22:40 (GMT) Jason Grant composed:

 @Thierry
[...]
 However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e. unlikely).

I don't, but I do think you're doing your best to rationalize compounding the
difficulties that result from real-life accidents and disabilities, be they
large, small, avoidable, or otherwise. These are not robots or statistics
gatherers you're making unnecessary difficulty for, but real people who need
to do what they need to do.
-- 
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.  John Adams, 2nd US President

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Jason Grant
Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.

If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about
accessibility whether I am right or wrong.

I will try and reply directly to remarks made by various individuals:

@Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD
working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I
can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in
my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed and maybe live a
bit of life in spare minutes. In first instance 'full accessibility'
is a must. In second, it might not be. That's my point. Where can I
read your masterpieces and thoughts by the way?

@Luc Glad we agree. ;-)

@Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing
however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems
specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for
IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to
save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are
circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client
wants.

@Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the
browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice
to have test environment details). I don't care. Content is visible
and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun
under my blog.

@Mark Harris Plagiarism will get you nowhere. ;-)

@Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to
use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped
by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We
are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future
holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have
to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 -- HTML5
is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some
changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just
a thought.

Thanks for replies once again.

Back to coding now.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Lesley Lutomski
ubu...@webaflame.co.uk wrote:
 I also agree with this, and I have a problem with someone whose view on
 accessibility seems to focus on the technologies, not the people using those
 technologies.

 I have a modern browser (Firefox 3.5) with full support for Javascript,
 Flash, etc.  I also have disabilities which make it very difficult for me to
 use some sites which employ those technologies.  If you want me, and people
 like me, to visit your site for more than a few seconds, then I suggest you
 focus on whether we can access it, not whether our computers can!

 Lesley

 Oliver Boermans wrote:

 On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote:

 Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you
 don't have regard for accessibility.

 Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason so
 many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectly good selfish
 reasons why companies ought to consider accessibility. It's about ensuring
 things just work.

 Ollie
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***




 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Luc
 Good afternoon Jason,

It was foretold that
on 30/01/2010 @ 16:57:27 GMT+ (which was 14:57:27 where I live)
Jason Grant would write:

snipped a bit

JG @Luc Glad we agree. ;-)

Just to make myself clear: i don't agree with your point of view: the
quoted text was to illustrate the motive that one should be using
accessibility.

-- 
Regards,
Luc
_

 http://www.dzinelabs.com

Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.2.6 with
Windows XP (build 2600), version
5.1 Service Pack 3 and
using the best browser: Opera. 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 30/01/2010 16:57, Jason Grant wrote:

@Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD
working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I
can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in
my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed and maybe live a
bit of life in spare minutes. In first instance 'full accessibility'
is a must. In second, it might not be.


That depends on your definition and understanding of full 
accessibility. Are we talking WCAG 1, WCAG 2, ...?



@Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing
however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems
specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for
IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to
save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are
circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client
wants.


That's a different argument to what you make in your blog post, which 
does not mention clients at all - just the argument that in those 
situations accessibility is irrelevant. There is a difference.



@Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to
use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped
by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We
are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future
holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have
to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 --  HTML5
is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some
changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just
a thought.


So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely 
inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets 
hired, then redo it all?


Looking at your comments on the blog, I note we should be able to get 
away with single A accessibility and a solid mobile solution instead. 
Accessibility is not a matter of getting away with anything. It's 
about providing the best solutions for the widest possible audiences. 
You seem to have a dichotomy of UX vs Accessibility, for some reason.


And again you seem to be stuck on the no JavaScript mindset. Is THAT 
really the crux of your argument? Are you hung up on WCAG 1? Is your 
blog post simply boiling down to I want to use JavaScript, but WCAG 1 
won't let me, but for UX it's great, and I can't be bothered to do a 
no-JS parallel solution? If so, WCAG 2 of course allows JS, if it's 
used correctly.


So I can finally understand the principles behind WCAG2.0.

I get the impression that you still don't, I'm afraid. By saying that 
accessibility does not matter in certain situations, you're implicitly 
saying that WCAG 2 doesn't matter.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:22 AM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
  @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to
  use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets
 dropped
  by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We
  are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future
  holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not
 have
  to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 --  HTML5
  is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some
  changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time.
 Just
  a thought.
 
 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely
 inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets
 hired, then redo it all?


Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow.


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:

 Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.
...
 @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the
 browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice
 to have test environment details).

   The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You
   haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and
   that *is* a matter of accessibility.

 I don't care. Content is visible
 and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun
 under my blog.

   Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is
   to *let* it work everywhere.

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson  http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Jason Grant
@Chris F. A. Johnson
Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still
accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this
issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish
like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's
content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size.

@Thierry Koblentz
'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
who we are developing for, otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.

@Patrick H. Lauke
'Full accessibility' to me means a fully functional site with JS
switched off, with all visual goodies in place of course (contrast,
flexible font size and so on) according to WCAG1.0, to which we have
so far been working. When web apps context comes in, meeting these
WCAG1.0 becomes a massive burden and extra work.

Clients issue - I am usually not developing for Santa Clause. Clients
essentially rule the game and set the constraints which I need to
meet. I am not going to invent constraints or drop anything that
client requires. If they tell me 'code for IE6 only' I will tell them
'but IE8 is already in use and IE9 is round the corner, so IE6 is way
beyond it's use by date, so I would not recommend what you suggest
under any circumstances' and they tell me that I should not worry, I
am not going to be an idiot enough to be pushing my issue as it tends
to simply piss people off and make me look bad in the eyes of
everyone.

JS issue. When writing this article for most part I *was* thinking
about JS vs. no-JS matters. To implement a proper progressively
enhanced solution for a complex web app it really does take lots of
thinking and additional (possibly complex) JS/AJAX code for it to
work. I haven't got that time to do it with the app I am currently
developing.

Coincidentally can someone send me a complex-ish web app using JS that
has been 'properly developed' with regards to accessibility? Anything
in the wild will do. Yahoo used to taut Flickr as one, but it isn't.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson
ch...@cfajohnson.com wrote:
 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:

 Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.
 ...
 @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the
 browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice
 to have test environment details).

   The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You
   haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and
   that *is* a matter of accessibility.

 I don't care. Content is visible
 and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun
 under my blog.

   Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is
   to *let* it work everywhere.

 --
   Chris F.A. Johnson                          http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Jason Grant
@Chris
I couldn't resist this Sir.
Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/
Uses two tables on the front page.
The first should be a dl and both are missing thead section. Poor
accessibility.
It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an
h1, but at the very top you have h1aimg construct going on.
HHmmm.
Anyway. Back to my shell script. ;-)

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote:
 @Chris F. A. Johnson
 Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still
 accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this
 issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish
 like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's
 content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size.

 @Thierry Koblentz
 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
 who we are developing for, otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.

 @Patrick H. Lauke
 'Full accessibility' to me means a fully functional site with JS
 switched off, with all visual goodies in place of course (contrast,
 flexible font size and so on) according to WCAG1.0, to which we have
 so far been working. When web apps context comes in, meeting these
 WCAG1.0 becomes a massive burden and extra work.

 Clients issue - I am usually not developing for Santa Clause. Clients
 essentially rule the game and set the constraints which I need to
 meet. I am not going to invent constraints or drop anything that
 client requires. If they tell me 'code for IE6 only' I will tell them
 'but IE8 is already in use and IE9 is round the corner, so IE6 is way
 beyond it's use by date, so I would not recommend what you suggest
 under any circumstances' and they tell me that I should not worry, I
 am not going to be an idiot enough to be pushing my issue as it tends
 to simply piss people off and make me look bad in the eyes of
 everyone.

 JS issue. When writing this article for most part I *was* thinking
 about JS vs. no-JS matters. To implement a proper progressively
 enhanced solution for a complex web app it really does take lots of
 thinking and additional (possibly complex) JS/AJAX code for it to
 work. I haven't got that time to do it with the app I am currently
 developing.

 Coincidentally can someone send me a complex-ish web app using JS that
 has been 'properly developed' with regards to accessibility? Anything
 in the wild will do. Yahoo used to taut Flickr as one, but it isn't.

 On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson
 ch...@cfajohnson.com wrote:
 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:

 Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email.
 ...
 @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the
 browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice
 to have test environment details).

   The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You
   haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and
   that *is* a matter of accessibility.

 I don't care. Content is visible
 and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun
 under my blog.

   Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is
   to *let* it work everywhere.

 --
   Chris F.A. Johnson                          http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





 --
 Jason Grant BSc, MSc
 CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
 www.flexewebs.com
 ja...@flexewebs.com
 +44 (0)7748 591 770
 Company no.: 5587469

 www.flexewebs.com/semantix
 www.twitter.com/flexewebs
 www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs




-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Chris
 I couldn't resist this Sir.
 Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/
 Uses two tables on the front page.
 The first should be a dl and both are missing thead section. Poor
 accessibility.

   I agree. That's a very old page that I haven't yet got around to
   fixing up.

 It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an
 h1, but at the very top you have h1aimg construct going on.

   There's nothing wrong with unusual.

 HHmmm.
 Anyway. Back to my shell script. ;-)

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson  http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Chris F. A. Johnson
 Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still
 accessible with larger font size.

 But even that is unnecessary; there's no good reason not to have
 it look good for everyone.

 How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts.

 Don't use fixed-width layouts.
 http://cfaj/cfajohnson.com/webdesign/fixed-width/

 I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users.

 What, pray tell, looks like rubbish? What doesn't work for 99% of
 viewers?

 Also with CSS switched off the site's content is perfectly visible
 with whatever default font size.

 One would certainly hope so! Now take it that tiny step further
 and make it work for everyone no matter what their default font
 size.

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson  http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! - ADMIN

2010-01-30 Thread Russ Weakley

ADMIN

This discussion is quickly deteriorating into name calling, finger  
pointing, etc.
Please return to the discussion, and be respectful of each other -  
regardless of your differences of opinion.


Thanks
Russ





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Peter Mount
Jason, I would not feel comfortable working for a client with such disregard 
for accessibility. To extend your argument if the client asks me to break the 
law does that make it OK? There is a real business need to have even intranet 
systems that are accessible. 

As for your assertion in the following line:

 If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about
 accessibility whether I am right or wrong.

I think there is a difference between sparking healthy debate and being a 
troll. 

--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
i...@petermount.com
http://www.petermount.com

On 31/01/2010, at 3:57 AM, Jason Grant wrote:

 
 @Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing
 however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems
 specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for
 IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to
 save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are
 circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client
 wants.
 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Thierry Koblentz
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely 
 inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets 
 hired, then redo it all?

 Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow.

 @Thierry Koblentz
 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
 who we are developing for,

As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your
audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the
other (because of a broken wrist for example).

 otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.

I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing. 


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Jason Grant
@Thierry
I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can.
It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as
Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a
semi-meaningful way.
This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort
of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript
support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used
to access the app I am currently working on).

From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest
level of usability through devices they are using. That way we
increase profit and ROI.

Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and
maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing
optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with
lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.).

My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than
'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense.

This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the
market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even.

Hope this makes sense.

So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I
think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached
from a clever, business angle.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely
 inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets
 hired, then redo it all?

 Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow.

 @Thierry Koblentz
 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
 who we are developing for,

 As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your
 audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the
 other (because of a broken wrist for example).

 otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.

 I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing.


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Peter Mount
Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!.  If you're going 
to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world 
examples to back up your claim.

Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That is 
the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an app 
can achieve greater usability by using  features which in turn deny access to 
those users who can't use those features. How does this increased usability 
benefit those people who can't use it?

--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
i...@petermount.com
http://www.petermount.com

On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Thierry
 I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
 My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can.
 It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as
 Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a
 semi-meaningful way.
 This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort
 of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript
 support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used
 to access the app I am currently working on).
 
 From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest
 level of usability through devices they are using. That way we
 increase profit and ROI.
 
 Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and
 maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing
 optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with
 lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.).
 
 My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than
 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense.
 
 This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the
 market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even.
 
 Hope this makes sense.
 
 So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I
 think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached
 from a clever, business angle.
 
 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz
 thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely
 inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets
 hired, then redo it all?
 
 Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow.
 
 @Thierry Koblentz
 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
 who we are developing for,
 
 As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your
 audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the
 other (because of a broken wrist for example).
 
 otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.
 
 I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing.
 
 
 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Jason Grant BSc, MSc
 CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
 www.flexewebs.com
 ja...@flexewebs.com
 +44 (0)7748 591 770
 Company no.: 5587469
 
 www.flexewebs.com/semantix
 www.twitter.com/flexewebs
 www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***
 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Jason Grant
@Peter
Title of my article is 'Accessibility does not matter?' (the question
mark is very intentional there).

To address your second point I will go back to the app I am currently
developing. It needs a lot of JavaScript to improve usability of the
tool and a progressively enhanced solution would be so far from the
JavaScript solution that in reality they are like 2 different
implementations of the tool.

Considering this tool has already taken me 10 solid days of coding (in
my spare time) without following the full progressive enhancement
route and I have another 20 days solid left in order to finish the
Alpha version, while I cannot envisage this tool being used by a
person with a non-JS support browser.

Why should I spend time coding a progressively enhanced solution for
this when I don't see this tool ever being used by a disabled person
of any sort?

Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it
will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in
my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind
person would not enjoy using this at all I would say).

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote:
 Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!.  If you're going 
 to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real world 
 examples to back up your claim.

 Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That 
 is the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an 
 app can achieve greater usability by using  features which in turn deny 
 access to those users who can't use those features. How does this increased 
 usability benefit those people who can't use it?

 --
 Peter Mount
 Web Development for Business
 Mobile: 0411 276602
 i...@petermount.com
 http://www.petermount.com

 On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Thierry
 I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
 My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can.
 It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as
 Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a
 semi-meaningful way.
 This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort
 of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript
 support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used
 to access the app I am currently working on).

 From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest
 level of usability through devices they are using. That way we
 increase profit and ROI.

 Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and
 maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing
 optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with
 lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.).

 My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than
 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense.

 This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the
 market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even.

 Hope this makes sense.

 So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I
 think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached
 from a clever, business angle.

 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz
 thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely
 inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets
 hired, then redo it all?

 Also, an employee with no disability today could have one tomorrow.

 @Thierry Koblentz
 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know
 who we are developing for,

 As I suggested in my post, ignoring accessibility pretending you know your
 audience is a mistake. Because any user can become disabled one way or the
 other (because of a broken wrist for example).

 otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss.

 I'd say narrowing your target audience increases your chances of missing.


 --
 Regards,
 Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***





 --
 Jason Grant BSc, MSc
 CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
 www.flexewebs.com
 ja...@flexewebs.com
 +44 (0)7748 591 770
 Company no.: 5587469

 www.flexewebs.com/semantix
 www.twitter.com/flexewebs
 www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Dani Iswara
Jason,
I can not accept that underline text on your post is not a clickable link.
Your W3C and WCAG words did not have its abbreviation.
And the option at the bottom of submit button is not in a logical
order, I think. :)

-- 
Regards,

Dani Iswara
http://daniiswara.net/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Peter Mount
So lack of time is an excuse we can use for not using accessibility from the 
start? How convenient we can use that excuse for not helping potential users.

Besides, every email in this thread has the title Accessibility does not 
matter! with the !.

Interesting you can't envisage anybody needing accessibility in your target 
audience. What methodology did you user to determine that? Did you allow for 
any variables on that in the future or are you assuming nobody is going to get 
injured or sick or even need to start wearing eye glasses?

With the following paragraph:

 Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it
 will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in
 my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind
 person would not enjoy using this at all I would say).

What are you saying? It seems like you are sitting on the fence in your 
argument.

If you're going to say Accessibility does not matter!, with the !, I'd like 
some more solid evidence to back up your statement.

--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
i...@petermount.com
http://www.petermount.com

On 31/01/2010, at 1:07 PM, Jason Grant wrote:

 @Peter
 Title of my article is 'Accessibility does not matter?' (the question
 mark is very intentional there).
 
 To address your second point I will go back to the app I am currently
 developing. It needs a lot of JavaScript to improve usability of the
 tool and a progressively enhanced solution would be so far from the
 JavaScript solution that in reality they are like 2 different
 implementations of the tool.
 
 Considering this tool has already taken me 10 solid days of coding (in
 my spare time) without following the full progressive enhancement
 route and I have another 20 days solid left in order to finish the
 Alpha version, while I cannot envisage this tool being used by a
 person with a non-JS support browser.
 
 Why should I spend time coding a progressively enhanced solution for
 this when I don't see this tool ever being used by a disabled person
 of any sort?
 
 Just to clarify, the tool will work perfectly with JS on, while it
 will still work without JS on, but the experience will be very poor in
 my estimation (so it would still be possible to use it, but a blind
 person would not enjoy using this at all I would say).
 
 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote:
 Jason your subject line is Accessibility does not matter!.  If you're 
 going to make a statement like that then I suggest you make a list of real 
 world examples to back up your claim.
 
 Plus how can an app be useable if some people don't find it accessible? That 
 is the flaw in your argument and it is a huge flaw. You are implying that an 
 app can achieve greater usability by using  features which in turn deny 
 access to those users who can't use those features. How does this increased 
 usability benefit those people who can't use it?
 
 --
 Peter Mount
 Web Development for Business
 Mobile: 0411 276602
 i...@petermount.com
 http://www.petermount.com
 
 On 31/01/2010, at 12:16 PM, Jason Grant wrote:
 
 @Thierry
 I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?
 My article does not say 'break all accessibility rules' if you can.
 It basically tries to say that a given advanced app solution (such as
 Google Calendar) requires JavaScript support to work in a
 semi-meaningful way.
 This fact usually impacts users accessing the site/app with some sort
 of an assistive technology or a technology with shitty JavaScript
 support (I used BlackBerry Bold 9000 as an example of common tool used
 to access the app I am currently working on).
 
 From UXD point of view we want to provide target users with highest
 level of usability through devices they are using. That way we
 increase profit and ROI.
 
 Under WCAG1.0 we would be coding for 'universal accessibility' and
 maybe degrade overall usability of the solution, while not providing
 optimal support for BlackBerry (as a scenario). This is all to do with
 lack of resources (time, money, skills, etc.).
 
 My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than
 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense.
 
 This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the
 market now, compared to what was the case some 5 years ago even.
 
 Hope this makes sense.
 
 So I am by no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I
 think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached
 from a clever, business angle.
 
 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz
 thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
 From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Grant
 Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
 
 So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread tee
Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :)

Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the 
West, all those corporates that make software, have a big influence and 
dominated the market  (Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from 
the West. Western mindset is all about  freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal 
access + right of use, but empathy is quick lacking the way I see it.  Green 
business has a term, greenwashing, perhaps we should have a term for 
accessibilty-washing, that is,  1% of equality minus 99% of empathy, I often 
think that this is the reason why web accessibility is slow crawling, because 
there isn't profit in making accessible software, web application, websites , 
etc. And it's that empathy that one has that makes one willing to run extra 
miles to make an accessible website, but one's effort is limited, on this 
notion, I can understand some of Jason's argument, though I don't agree with 
him.

Some culture in the East has the notion of empathy but lack of freedom of 
*fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, and they have to learn the 
Web-standards and accessibility knowledge using English  and learn from the 
West.

I am pretty certain Tim Berners-Lee on The power of the Web is in its 
universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential 
aspect includes 99% of empathy.


tee


 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread i...@eyemaxstudios.net
I whole heartily agree with you Tee, and more importantly with Tim 
Berners-Lee, the Internet as a whole was invited for the people to share 
information, and how can information be shared if accessibility is 
limited, even on intranet's if the system is built from the beginning to 
be widely accessible. When I first started learning about writing code 
for Standards Compliancy, and made sure I followed the outlines, I soon 
found myself writing in that manner automatically, it's just a matter of 
learning. And in this day and age, what decent developer builds software 
for web or otherwise does it without learning new techniques. If those 
developer's are not willing to adapt to the needs of consumers, they 
should steps aside, and take up another profession. Sorry, but I get 
beaten out of jobs myself due to these amateurs, only to have those 
client's come back to me, stating they went somewhere else 'cos it was 
cheaper, and they haven't been given the accessibility or editable 
options I discussed with them.


Also, to the person in the previous comments (don't remember who it was, 
I do this via email), that stated something about when jQuery is no 
longer supported in Browser's. You need to do a little homework before 
making such claims. jQuery is a JavaScript framework, hence it's 
JavaScript, which is support in almost every Browser, and JavaScript 
won't be getting dropped from Browser's for a very long time, and in 
fact it's been around before it was implemented and support in 
Browser's. Being Netscape in fact. If anything should or would get 
dropped, it should be these bulky have to install into the user's OS 
third party add-ons, such as Flash, Silverlight, and so on.


On a personal note Tee, you seem to be of the mind of following or have 
heard of Esoteric Agenda?


tee wrote:

Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :)

Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the West, all 
those corporates that make software, have a big influence and dominated the market  
(Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from the West. Western mindset is all 
about  freedom of *fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, but empathy is quick 
lacking the way I see it.  Green business has a term, greenwashing, perhaps we should 
have a term for accessibilty-washing, that is,  1% of equality minus 99% of 
empathy, I often think that this is the reason why web accessibility is slow crawling, 
because there isn't profit in making accessible software, web application, websites , 
etc. And it's that empathy that one has that makes one willing to run extra miles to make 
an accessible website, but one's effort is limited, on this notion, I can understand some 
of Jason's argument, though I don't agree with him.

Some culture in the East has the notion of empathy but lack of freedom of 
*fill_in_blank* + equal access + right of use, and they have to learn the 
Web-standards and accessibility knowledge using English  and learn from the West.

I am pretty certain Tim Berners-Lee on The power of the Web is in its universality. 
Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect includes 99% of 
empathy.


tee


  




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

  





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-30 Thread Matthew Pennell
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote:

 @Thierry
 I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility?


Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not
keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it?

Now you've exposed your naivety, I suggest you let the good people of this
thread educate you so you can create better work in the future. :)

- Matthew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

[WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Jason Grant
Hello friends,

I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter'
to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar
subject instead.

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.

http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Jason

-- 
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469

www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Not a bad read.

I'm about halfway in between your view and accessibility all the time. 
I do agree that there is a lot of accessibility for the sake of 
accessibility, however, there are also lots of things that are so easy 
to do that they should always be done, even if your target market 
doesn't explicitly need that.


Thanks for the interesting read.
- Christian

On 1/29/2010 9:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote:

Hello friends,

I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter'
to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar
subject instead.

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.

http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Jason

   



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

On 29/01/2010 14:09, Jason Grant wrote:

I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter'
to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar
subject instead.

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.

http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/


I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion, your argumentation is confused, 
ill informed, and misguided. More detail in my comment.


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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Paul Novitski

At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote:

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.

http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/



Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly 
written that you've given critical readers little to work with. 
You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's 
not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites 
in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe 
them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad, 
deep, and empathetic thinking.



When accessibility matters
...
* A company cares about their users


You could have stopped right there.

Glumly,
Paul 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Luc
Also posted on your blog:

When accessibility matters:

There are clear circumstances within which accessibility is incredibly
relevant and should be implemented by all means possible.

A  company  cares  about  their  users,  wanting  to  ensure a wide as
possible accessibility in order to avoid customer complaints, negative
feedback  and  generally  increase  their changes of higher profits by
ensuring everyone can buy goods from their web site without problems

Enough said i think :-)

-- 
Regards,
 Luc
_

Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.2.6 with
Windows XP (build 2600), version
5.1 Service Pack 3 and
using the best browser: Opera.

You are richer today if you have laughed, given or forgiven. 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Peter Mount

After reading the article myself I agree Jason is wrong.

Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if  
you don't have regard for accessibility.


I haven't been posting to this list very much lately but I just had to  
say something about this.


Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
i...@petermount.com
http://www.petermount.com

On 30/01/2010, at 9:46 AM, Paul Novitski p...@juniperwebcraft.com  
wrote:



At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote:

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the  
blog itself.


http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/



Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly  
written that you've given critical readers little to work with.  
You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's  
not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites  
in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe  
them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of  
broad, deep, and empathetic thinking.



When accessibility matters
...
* A company cares about their users


You could have stopped right there.

Glumly,
Paul


***
List Guidelines:http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson

  Nor, apparently, does a page which works:
  http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/flexewebs.jpg.


-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson  http://cfajohnson.com
   ===
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Oliver Boermans

On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote:

Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire  
if you don't have regard for accessibility.


Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason  
so many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectly good  
selfish reasons why companies ought to consider accessibility. It's  
about ensuring things just work.


Ollie 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***