Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 2009/07/07 21:05 (GMT+0100) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis composed: On 7/7/09 04:19, Felix Miata wrote: To suppose Frozen means anything other than frozen undersize would be a difficult supposition to support, as one need only peruse the web to see how rare frozen at or larger than default can be found. Thus, disrespectful (smaller than default) font sizes were and _are_ the #1 (foundational) problem, with other font issues lagging. ... I'm uncomfortable with your equation of common with foundational. I'm not sure I see such an equation. Nevertheless, on web pages where text is the content, legibility should be job one. Without large enough text, legibility is impossible regardless what other factors are involved. Too small is too small, something that raising contrast or increasing leading cannot ever fix. Safest presumption of choice, very much yes. Any other presumption, which is what use of non-defaults makes, is a poor foundation on which to build in usability and/or accessibility. I think it's safer to build usability and accessibility on reality rather than presumptions. Most web site designs incorporate presumptions. Designers are neither normal users, nor are they sitting over the shoulders of visitors to see what their settings are or how they are reacting to what they find. So, the designer cannot know what those settings are, or more importantly, that any deviation from 100% acceptance of those settings can provide a better experience for the majority of visitors. The reality is that a body font-size rule other than 100%/1em/medium is a presumption that the user default is supra-optimal and can be improved upon by the designer by reducing overall text size. This claim 1 is addressed by the major point of Inkster article. On the contrary, Toby argues from the position that users defaults might not match their preferences. Yes, certainly for some portion of the universe that must follow. But, the point he makes is it's more likely than not that a designer adjustment will produce a negative result. Claim 2: Acceptance of publisher font size suggestions is not a valid user choice. I'm not sure I understand your claim. If you assume an actual user setting is not a valid choice, No. I'm saying the actual user setting is an entirely valid choice and means something different than what you assume it does. The default font setting is explicitly the font size to use when the publisher happens not to suggest a font size. The user setting means Please use the publisher's suggested font size. If they fail to suggest a font size, please use X not Please use this font size for body text on all webpages, I don't see how you can read please into it. When publisher uses px or pt or mm or cm he's totally disregarding whatever my preference might be, while having no actual knowledge what sizes his so-called suggestions produce. When he's using some arbitrary fraction of my choice, he still doesn't know the actual result but merely the bias he created. Either way, to think the user is asking with a please is just ludicrous. although I understand most webpages will override this with itsy font size suggestions. As evidence, consider the help text for these features: ... And what do their help sections on minimum and text zoom and page zoom have to say? Most are personal computers. By definition they come with personalizability built in. The vendors have provided for the clueless, and everyone else, usable defaults. Authors should defer to the clueful, not the clueless. Doing otherwise is an affirmative designer choice for chaos outside their own microcosms. The clueless who are overwhelmed by their cluelessness can generally acquire clues. I think it's dangerous to ignore clueless users when building for usability and accessibility since: Deferring and ignoring are not the same thing. You don't know that the clueless actually need help, or that your actions provide it. 1. The majority of users seem pretty clueless. Where are the stats to prove it? 2. Cognitive disabilities could contribute to effective computer cluelessness. And? Also, given that setting default font sizes does not make body text that size on much, if not most, of the web, I'd expect clueful users who wanted that size to set a minimum size, reject publisher font size suggestions, or reject publisher style suggestions entire. The clueful do choose in different ways. Minimums tend to cause text to overlap or disappear because the designs don't accommodate size deviation from the publisher preference. Blanket rejection generally causes all sorts of other problems. Try it yourself on some typical overpopulated pages and see how easy or difficult it is to actually find objects on. Modern pages are full of contextual content that amounts to haystacks hiding needles. So, these defenses, as most defenses, have drawbacks, which may or may not
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
Dennis Lapcewich wrote: While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I did not write the above. Please do not attribute to me another's comments in this accessibility thread. Please make sure you attribute correctly so as to avoid a misquote, at best, or disingenuous intent, at worst. My original comment concerned itself with a medical condition that in time, literally affects 100 percent of the human population. While onset of presbyopia is often described in the literature in the 40s and later, it is not unheard of to have symptoms beginning at age 35-40. A physical inability to focus on near objects is a legitimate disability. Bear in mind that addressing web accessibility is not as simple as reviewing server stats or talking with a few folks and deciding accordingly. Web accessibility is a human condition life change that will eventually affect everyone. Whatever technical approaches a web developer chooses to implement still remains with the developer, for now. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw ??where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.? --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 7/7/09 04:19, Felix Miata wrote: To suppose Frozen means anything other than frozen undersize would be a difficult supposition to support, as one need only peruse the web to see how rare frozen at or larger than default can be found. Thus, disrespectful (smaller than default) font sizes were and _are_ the #1 (foundational) problem, with other font issues lagging. Maybe. The more I read that article, the harder I find it to work out the form Nielsen's responses took and how he calculated the ranking. How important was the third of respondents who complained about contrast to the overall ranking of the bad fonts category? Is that a third of all respondents, or a third of the readers who complained about bad fonts? I'm uncomfortable with your equation of common with foundational. The claims I was trying to question were: Claim 1: Browser defaults always represent user choice. Actual choice, of course not always. Right, glad we agree. :) Safest presumption of choice, very much yes. Any other presumption, which is what use of non-defaults makes, is a poor foundation on which to build in usability and/or accessibility. I think it's safer to build usability and accessibility on reality rather than presumptions. This claim 1 is addressed by the major point of Inkster article. On the contrary, Toby argues from the position that users defaults might not match their preferences. Claim 2: Acceptance of publisher font size suggestions is not a valid user choice. If by publisher you mean site designer, Site publisher. I'm not sure I understand your claim. If you assume an actual user setting is not a valid choice, No. I'm saying the actual user setting is an entirely valid choice and means something different than what you assume it does. The default font setting is explicitly the font size to use when the publisher happens not to suggest a font size. The user setting means Please use the publisher's suggested font size. If they fail to suggest a font size, please use X not Please use this font size for body text on all webpages, although I understand most webpages will override this with itsy font size suggestions. As evidence, consider the help text for these features: Internet Explorer Help says: Change the colors and fonts used for webpages. Internet Explorer lets you pick which fonts and colors will be used to display webpages. These settings will only affect webpages that do not specify colors and fonts within the page. If you want to use your color and font choices on all webpages, regardless of whether they've been specified by the website designer, you can override website font and color settings. Firefox Help says: 'Default font and Size': Web pages are usually displayed in the font and size specified here. However, web pages can override these choices unless you specify otherwise in the Fonts dialog. … 'Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above': By default Firefox uses the fonts specified by the web page author. Disabling this preference will force all sites to use your default fonts instead. http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Options+window+-+Content+panel?style_mode=inproduct#Fonts_Dialog Safari Help says: 'Standard font and Fixed-width font': To change the fonts used in webpages that don’t specify their own fonts, click the Select buttons and choose the font you want. Opera Help says: 'Fonts and colors'. Not all Web pages clearly specify styling for all page elements. These settings let you choose how such elements should be displayed; which fonts and colors to use, and whether links should be underlined. http://help.opera.com/Mac/9.64/en/webpages.html The Opera Help text is the most explicit that these settings are fallbacks. Most are personal computers. By definition they come with personalizability built in. The vendors have provided for the clueless, and everyone else, usable defaults. Authors should defer to the clueful, not the clueless. Doing otherwise is an affirmative designer choice for chaos outside their own microcosms. The clueless who are overwhelmed by their cluelessness can generally acquire clues. I think it's dangerous to ignore clueless users when building for usability and accessibility since: 1. The majority of users seem pretty clueless. 2. Cognitive disabilities could contribute to effective computer cluelessness. Also, given that setting default font sizes does not make body text that size on much, if not most, of the web, I'd expect clueful users who wanted that size to set a minimum size, reject publisher font size suggestions, or reject publisher style suggestions entire. People make choices to serve their interests. It's in everyone's best interest to respect others and their choices. It's my puter. I set the settings according to my needs. Web pages can accommodate and respect them. I can see no rational justification why they should not. We
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
2009/7/8 Dennis Lapcewich dlapcew...@fs.fed.us: Dennis Lapcewich wrote: While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I did not write the above. Please do not attribute to me another's comments in this accessibility thread. Please make sure you attribute correctly so as to avoid a misquote, at best, or disingenuous intent, at worst. My original comment concerned itself with a medical condition that in time, literally affects 100 percent of the human population. While onset of presbyopia is often described in the literature in the 40s and later, it is not unheard of to have symptoms beginning at age 35-40. Dennis is quite right - I wrote the quoted While I agree with your general sentiment... sentence. Have to be careful with those indents and attributions. I stand by my comment, by the way: while I strongly agree that accessibility is a core aspect of web design, extrapolating it's not unheard of to have symptoms beginning at age 35-40 to [all people aged 35-40 or more are] for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility is clearly overstating the case. It's unnecessary, as the case for good accessibility is very strong anyway, and only gets weakened by making exaggerated claims. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
Dennis Lapcewich wrote: While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I really don't see what anyone's visual acuity has over the issue of font sizes. We have absolutely *no way* of knowing the size of text that shows up on a visitor's browsing device. Any assumption of too big or too small is a crap shoot. The only assumption we *can* make is the likelihood that a visitor can read text at their device's default - and even that is not completely certain. What on earth is the problem of specifying font-size: 100%; and using that for the main text? I really can't see how that leads one to spend countless hours to code around the issue, as one contributor maintains. Sorry to add to the noise. This is - or should be - a non-issue in today's world of iPhones and 32 inch desk monitors. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 2009/07/05 11:21 (GMT+0100) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis composed: Felix Miata wrote: On 2009/07/04 10:13 (GMT+0100) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis composed: Felix Miata wrote: Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. I'm dubious about the rhetoric here: That you call it rhetoric doesn't make it so. Too small text is #1 user complaint: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html That's not quite what the article says. Bad fonts was the biggest complaint from Nielsen's readers, but that category includes frozen font sizes and low contrast, not just small font sizes. The entire text: Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes; about one-third complained about low contrast between text and background. To suppose Frozen means anything other than frozen undersize would be a difficult supposition to support, as one need only peruse the web to see how rare frozen at or larger than default can be found. Thus, disrespectful (smaller than default) font sizes were and _are_ the #1 (foundational) problem, with other font issues lagging. W3 recommends 100%: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size Recommends has a technical sense when it comes to W3C, and this isn't a formal recommendation: While the tips are carefully reviewed by the participants of the [Quality Assurance Interest] group, they should not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative W3C technical specifications. Keyword: W I S D O M Designers who implement that wise advice are wise. As do others, e.g.: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace#hard-to-read-fonts The claims I was trying to question were: Claim 1: Browser defaults always represent user choice. Actual choice, of course not always. Safest presumption of choice, very much yes. Any other presumption, which is what use of non-defaults makes, is a poor foundation on which to build in usability and/or accessibility. This claim 1 is addressed by the major point of Inkster article. Claim 2: Acceptance of publisher font size suggestions is not a valid user choice. If by publisher you mean browser and/or desktop environment vendor(s), it's a logical presumption to make, and a superior one to presuming that disrespecting defaults (non-100%) can improve the experience for more than degrade the experience. If by publisher you mean site designer, I'm not sure I understand your claim. If you assume an actual user setting is not a valid choice, whether made or not, actively or otherwise, you still have no basis to determine your disregard of or necessarily arbitrary adjustment to those settings can be better for the users than whatever was set by or for the users. IOW, there's no practical and legitimate way for any designer to logically come up with something different that is globally better. Claim 3: Publisher font size suggestions are an offence against user choice in some way that typeface and color suggestions are not. Trouble with the size, the foundation of legibility, usually overwhelms the impact of typeface and color, which is not the same thing as saying the latter have no impact at all. Generally the designer can reduce legibility by changing face/color, but not globally improve materially WRT legibility of the defaults. All the browsers by default use reasonably legible typefaces, and black on white. Black on white is presumptively best, like most quality books and most magazine pages use. A reduced contrast can help only for a subset of the universe, mostly those who have displays set to excessive brightness and/or contrast. Those with such displays should correct for themselves. OTOH, there are those who must use tired old displays, often with brightness and contrast _incapable_ of being restored upwards to near optimal. Most of the authorities you cite agree with Claim 1 but none offer any argument for Claims 1 or 2. As to 1, what's to argue? As to 2, maybe they wouldn't understand your point either? Most contradict Claim 3. In Nielsen's survey of his readers, a third complained about poor color contrast. Oliver Reichenstein discusses how bad contrast can reduce legibility, and your own article says to be legible, text needs enough contrast. Toby Inkster and Stephen Poley both discuss how typeface choice can render text
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 4/7/09 16:09, Felix Miata wrote: On 2009/07/04 10:13 (GMT+0100) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis composed: On 2/7/09 17:07, Felix Miata wrote: Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. I'm dubious about the rhetoric here: That you call it rhetoric doesn't make it so. Too small text is #1 user complaint: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html That's not quite what the article says. Bad fonts was the biggest complaint from Nielsen's readers, but that category includes frozen font sizes and low contrast, not just small font sizes. W3 recommends 100%: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size Recommends has a technical sense when it comes to W3C, and this isn't a formal recommendation: While the tips are carefully reviewed by the participants of the [Quality Assurance Interest] group, they should not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative W3C technical specifications. As do others, e.g.: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace#hard-to-read-fonts The claims I was trying to question were: Claim 1: Browser defaults always represent user choice. Claim 2: Acceptance of publisher font size suggestions is not a valid user choice. Claim 3: Publisher font size suggestions are an offence against user choice in some way that typeface and color suggestions are not. Most of the authorities you cite agree with Claim 1 but none offer any argument for Claims 1 or 2. Most contradict Claim 3. In Nielsen's survey of his readers, a third complained about poor color contrast. Oliver Reichenstein discusses how bad contrast can reduce legibility, and your own article says to be legible, text needs enough contrast. Toby Inkster and Stephen Poley both discuss how typeface choice can render text hard-to-read. Tim Seifert's excellent diatribe says [d]aft colour schemes are a pain and [s]etting a page to use particular fonts … can make a page difficult, or impossible to read. * Why should we treat browser default font size settings, which many users seem not to realise that they can change, Whether individuals know how [snip] is irrelevant Can you make a choice if you do not realize you have options? Of the users who do realize they can force font size but choose not to, why assume their choice is to use the default size with all designs rather than supplying a default size when publisher suggestions are absent? Why assume users are always trying to use that browser setting to do something it doesn't claim to do? You as designer aren't there, so you can't possibly know that what they have isn't acceptable or even perfect, much less improve their experience by deviating from the default. Both users and designers operate from a position of ignorance. Users who adjust their default font size don't know how their adjusted default font size will work with different colors and typefaces; designers know how common default font sizes will work with their suggested colors and typefaces, but not how the user's adjusted size will work. Because of these areas of ignorance, it is possible for designers to happen to suggest a more legible size. (The more users who don't adjust their default font size, the more likely this is.) Personal computers are not made by morons, but by humans who have preselected defaults designed to make the majority of users happy with most things just as they found them, ready to use as received. To think that an eagle-eyed web page designer biased by her giant tax-deductible worktool display can impose some other size in order to make things better for the majority is a preposterous supposition. I think the default styles used by popular browsers mainly aim at a mix of: 1. Making websites look similar to how they look in other popular browsers. 2. Making website controls look similar to those in the desktop widgets. They aren't designed from scratch to maximize usability by themselves or to maintain usability when combined with publisher styles. Maybe the original design decisions that underpinned these styles were good ones. (I don't buy the notion that default font sizes for body text are too big, at any rate.) It's certainly true that web designers often make bad design decisions, but it doesn't follow that their design decisions are invariably worse than the design decisions behind the basic styles. These styles come as a package. As soon as web designers start suggesting colors and
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 2/7/09 17:07, Felix Miata wrote: Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. I'm dubious about the rhetoric here: * Why should we treat browser default font size settings, which many users seem not to realise that they can change, as users' font size choices? If users want to force a font size everywhere, they can and that is indisputably a user choice. * Why should we characterize user acceptance with reservations of publisher styles for the page, the web, or their entire system as a defensive measure? I think this language reinforces the popular (mis)conception that publisher styles are the natural presentation of the publisher's content, rather than a skin the user should be able to reject or use with modifications. Why not see this as a partnership rather than a battle? * Like font size, typeface and colors can radically affect the legibility of text and can be overridden by settings in popular browsers. Would you describe publisher typeface and color suggestions as an offence against user choice? If no, then why not? (As an aside, none of this undermines the clear usability advantages of designing for legibility when creating publisher skins.) I'd suggest that bigger problems in modern web design are the use of publisher styles that: 1. Prevent user acceptance of publisher styles with reservations. For example, use of background-image (which may need to be disabled for legibility reasons) to render headers and controls, with their text hidden, or positioned off-screen, or overlaid by another element where it won't be seen. I've railed against this, but I can't see this getting better until we develop a fast and reliable technique for detecting whether background-image will be applied with JS or CSS3's modifications to content are widely implemented: http://www.css3.info/image-replacement-in-css3/ 2. Far worse, prevent user rejection of publisher styles wholesale. For example, loading multiple application states (e.g. a form, its error messages and sucess messages) into the DOM simultaneously, then using the display property to determine which get shown to the user - rather than using DOM methods to add and remove fragments to the DOM as required. These do turn turn the partnership into a conflict. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
sine qua non = indispensible On Thu, July 2, 2009 9:27 pm, Rick Faircloth wrote: It is the sine qua non of accessibility And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make...just addressing the font-size issue is the most basic form of accomodation possible. We can do better. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson c...@freeshell.orgwrote: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Rick Faircloth wrote: But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. It is the sine qua non of accessibility. It's not the only issue, but it is the most basic. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. There is no issue to code around. The only issue is overspecifying sizes which leads to inaccessible pages. Less is more. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** 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] Accessible websites
sine qua non also means most basic - yes, it is the most critical aspect of accessibility to information, if the information is contained in textual form, but it is only the most primal level of accessibility to be offered. New techniques, well not actually new, but finally unleashed legally, are being deployed which will allow designers to use any font desired and I'm not so sure that end users will have much control over the display of those fonts embedded in the site. Those font/design techniques, I believe, will dominate web design and could soon make all discussion of font manipulation a mute point, which will drive us towards other solutions, such as whole browser magnification, etc. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Stuart Foulstone stu...@bigeasyweb.co.ukwrote: sine qua non = indispensible On Thu, July 2, 2009 9:27 pm, Rick Faircloth wrote: It is the sine qua non of accessibility And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make...just addressing the font-size issue is the most basic form of accomodation possible. We can do better. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson c...@freeshell.orgwrote: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Rick Faircloth wrote: But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. It is the sine qua non of accessibility. It's not the only issue, but it is the most basic. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. There is no issue to code around. The only issue is overspecifying sizes which leads to inaccessible pages. Less is more. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** 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 *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites
I don't really see how the ability to download fonts (that is what you are talking about, isn't it?), will affect web accessibility significantly. It will have a big impact on design, but the technological change surely only affects the back-end of the web browser, not the actual display. PS I presume you meant 'moot' not 'mute' ? Regards, Mike From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org on behalf of Rick Faircloth Sent: Fri 03/07/2009 14:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible websites sine qua non also means most basic - yes, it is the most critical aspect of accessibility to information, if the information is contained in textual form, but it is only the most primal level of accessibility to be offered. New techniques, well not actually new, but finally unleashed legally, are being deployed which will allow designers to use any font desired and I'm not so sure that end users will have much control over the display of those fonts embedded in the site. Those font/design techniques, I believe, will dominate web design and could soon make all discussion of font manipulation a mute point, which will drive us towards other solutions, such as whole browser magnification, etc. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
Yes, 'moot'...thanks for the correction... I'm not sure how the technological change will actually affect the interaction between end user and designer as far as who has final control of the presentation. Font embedding is not something that I've spent much time on. I can't find the reference now, but read recently that the font industry was finally beginning to get its act together and license fonts for embedding or download or whatever the technique is, through a clearinghouse to which designers would pay one of several fee options to be able to use licensed fonts in their sites. This opens up worlds of creative options and will complicate the issues of deriving meaning from text only, vs layout/text/graphics, etc. I just think the writing is on the wall that font manipulation has had its day, but will soon be overrun by more satisfying options that will have to be deployed by browser creators, rather than end users who will eventually have little or no control over how information is presented to them as a whole, rather than just on the font size they read. Rick On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, michael.brocking...@bt.com wrote: I don't really see how the ability to download fonts (that is what you are talking about, isn't it?), will affect web accessibility significantly. It will have a big impact on design, but the technological change surely only affects the back-end of the web browser, not the actual display. PS I presume you meant 'moot' not 'mute' ? Regards, Mike From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org on behalf of Rick Faircloth Sent: Fri 03/07/2009 14:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible websites sine qua non also means most basic - yes, it is the most critical aspect of accessibility to information, if the information is contained in textual form, but it is only the most primal level of accessibility to be offered. New techniques, well not actually new, but finally unleashed legally, are being deployed which will allow designers to use any font desired and I'm not so sure that end users will have much control over the display of those fonts embedded in the site. Those font/design techniques, I believe, will dominate web design and could soon make all discussion of font manipulation a mute point, which will drive us towards other solutions, such as whole browser magnification, etc. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
I think this may be the service to which you refer... http://www.typekit.com http://blog.typekit.com -- DonkeyMagic: Website design development http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
Yes, thanks for the reference, Richard. I believe that's exactly what I was reading about. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Richard Stephenson donkeyma...@gmail.comwrote: I think this may be the service to which you refer... http://www.typekit.com http://blog.typekit.com -- DonkeyMagic: Website design development http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I'd be careful of overstating the case like this, as it can undermine the whole argument. The technical term is presbyopia, a physical inability of the lens of the eye to focus properly. Specifically, the lens loses its elasticity and ability to properly focus on near objects. It is a natural course of aging. Onset is often between the ages of 40-50, however, it has been seen at earlier ages. In web terms, one's ability to obtain information from computer monitors (web pages) will decrease as one ages, without correction. The normal method of correction is bifocal lenses, even trifocal lenses in some cases. As pointed out in another email in this thread, taking advantage of a browser's magnifications abilities through accessibility coding techniques is an excellent example to address this. It's rather difficult to overstate the issue when over the course of time, presbyopia is pretty much 100 percent universal within the human population. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw ??where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.? --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 2009/07/02 08:46 (GMT-0700) Dennis Lapcewich composed: The technical term is presbyopia, a physical inability of the lens of the eye to focus properly. Specifically, the lens loses its elasticity and ability to properly focus on near objects. It is a natural course of aging. Onset is often between the ages of 40-50, however, it has been seen at earlier ages. In web terms, one's ability to obtain information from computer monitors (web pages) will decrease as one ages, without correction. The normal method of correction is bifocal lenses, even trifocal lenses in some cases. As pointed out in another email in this thread, taking advantage of a browser's magnifications abilities through accessibility coding techniques is an excellent example to address this. Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. It's rather difficult to overstate the issue when over the course of time, presbyopia is pretty much 100 percent universal within the human population. -- No Jesus - No peace , Know Jesus - Know Peace 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] Accessible websites
But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2009/07/02 08:46 (GMT-0700) Dennis Lapcewich composed: The technical term is presbyopia, a physical inability of the lens of the eye to focus properly. Specifically, the lens loses its elasticity and ability to properly focus on near objects. It is a natural course of aging. Onset is often between the ages of 40-50, however, it has been seen at earlier ages. In web terms, one's ability to obtain information from computer monitors (web pages) will decrease as one ages, without correction. The normal method of correction is bifocal lenses, even trifocal lenses in some cases. As pointed out in another email in this thread, taking advantage of a browser's magnifications abilities through accessibility coding techniques is an excellent example to address this. Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. It's rather difficult to overstate the issue when over the course of time, presbyopia is pretty much 100 percent universal within the human population. -- No Jesus - No peace , Know Jesus - Know Peace 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 *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Rick Faircloth wrote: But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. It is the sine qua non of accessibility. It's not the only issue, but it is the most basic. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. There is no issue to code around. The only issue is overspecifying sizes which leads to inaccessible pages. Less is more. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
It is the sine qua non of accessibility And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make...just addressing the font-size issue is the most basic form of accomodation possible. We can do better. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson c...@freeshell.orgwrote: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Rick Faircloth wrote: But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. It is the sine qua non of accessibility. It's not the only issue, but it is the most basic. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. There is no issue to code around. The only issue is overspecifying sizes which leads to inaccessible pages. Less is more. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
On 2009/07/02 15:20 (GMT-0400) Rick Faircloth composed: Felix Miata wrote: Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first place. It's rather difficult to overstate the issue when over the course of time, presbyopia is pretty much 100 percent universal within the human population. But how will you magnify the images and layout as designed for me to view? Respectful design obviates the need. Addressing font issues is only the absolute basic attempt to make the web more accessible...It's important to be able to see how something is said and with what supporting content and context, rather than just what is said. It certainly is important to be able to see. Thus, you're creating the handicap that needs the defense mechanism when you make it harder to see by sizing text smaller than the visitor's preference. With the exception of background images, other objects besides the text when sized with reference to the text size automatically adjusted as necessary. Context is thus preserved - automatically, by the web browser. Focusing on font-size is quite an antiquated, limited view of accessiblity. It's the foundational starting point from which everything else can and _should_ be referenced. The visitor has presumptively set that point before reaching any web site, and it can work well if the designer/coder accepts whatever that may happen to be. The designer/coder does that by dispensing with the px unit for sizing, replacing it with the visitor's preset point of reference: the em unit. Magnification of entire monitor screens (not just decreasing resolution), and browser magnification address all the issues, and in a very satisfying and simple manner, rather than asking/requiring web designers/developers to spend countless hours trying to code around the issues. By dispensing with the impossible to achieve goal of pixel perfection, and using em instead of px to size, the only thing to work around is how to size background images. That is often very easily worked around by simply not using background images. -- No Jesus - No peace , Know Jesus - Know Peace 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] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
I'll just address one you raised Jens. Google does not currently parse external Javascript files. So unless Fairfax uses simple inline Javascript, and exposes spiderable URLS, that's probably good enough for most of us to use progressive enhancement methodology . Ask Lucas. When he gets back from SG Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
At Yahoo! we build our sites to work without JS and then add progressive enhancement. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we find a much larger number of users without JS. Take a look at this page: http://finance.yahoo.com/news With JS enabled and disabled you'll see all of the customization functionality works. The personalization features were built by Dirk Ginader who also made this presentation on why and how you should build sites for everyone. http://www.slideshare.net/ginader/the-5-layers-of-web-accessibility Ted DRAKE -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account) I'll just address one you raised Jens. Google does not currently parse external Javascript files. So unless Fairfax uses simple inline Javascript, and exposes spiderable URLS, that's probably good enough for most of us to use progressive enhancement methodology . Ask Lucas. When he gets back from SG Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? *** 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] Accessible websites
In the big picture, many things will use your website that won't use javascript. Like a search engine spider. Or a crappy cell phone. At the very least make sure your basic site functions don't rely on javascript to work. Same thing with images. The arguments/links below from Ted are valuble if you want to look deeper. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com On 7/1/09 12:39 PM, Ted Drake wrote: At Yahoo! we build our sites to work without JS and then add progressive enhancement. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we find a much larger number of users without JS. Take a look at this page: http://finance.yahoo.com/news With JS enabled and disabled you'll see all of the customization functionality works. The personalization features were built by Dirk Ginader who also made this presentation on why and how you should build sites for everyone. http://www.slideshare.net/ginader/the-5-layers-of-web-accessibility Ted DRAKE -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account) I'll just address one you raised Jens. Google does not currently parse external Javascript files. So unless Fairfax uses simple inline Javascript, and exposes spiderable URLS, that's probably good enough for most of us to use progressive enhancement methodology . Ask Lucas. When he gets back from SG Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? *** 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 ***
[Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. I average 80 percent or more end up sitting down every time I perform this test. The short three question test is not scientific. It is not technically accurate. But as an illustrative tool to raise accessibility awareness, it is 100 percent effective. Here in the USA, 20 percent of the population is disabled. That's sixty million people. Many of these disabilities have no connection with web accessibility. If you believe web accessibility provides no revenue return for a site owner, think again. Those who possess the wealth and spend the money are those who are sitting down. They are the ones that vote. It only took one blind person in California to bring down target.com, using a law not written to address web accessibility. Accessibility is not about the law. It's about doing the right thing. And when it comes to web accessibility, everyone at some point will be a disabled web user. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw ??where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.? --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
Web accessibility is being more properly handled by browser creators using magnification functionality, which more effectively provides a better, more satisfying user experience because images, as well as text, can be magnified. While previous magnification functionality has required users to scroll horizontally, that, too, is being addressed by browser creators. So designers can be a good bridge to a better future for users, ultimately the browser creators will provide better solutions than we can...and I'm a visually impaired user who does not want to have a better view of only the text, but the entire layout as designed. Rick On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Dennis Lapcewich dlapcew...@fs.fed.uswrote: If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. I average 80 percent or more end up sitting down every time I perform this test. The short three question test is not scientific. It is not technically accurate. But as an illustrative tool to raise accessibility awareness, it is 100 percent effective. Here in the USA, 20 percent of the population is disabled. That's sixty million people. Many of these disabilities have no connection with web accessibility. If you believe web accessibility provides no revenue return for a site owner, think again. Those who possess the wealth and spend the money are those who are sitting down. They are the ones that vote. It only took one blind person in California to bring down target.com, using a law not written to address web accessibility. Accessibility is not about the law. It's about doing the right thing. And when it comes to web accessibility, everyone at some point will be a disabled web user. Dennis Lapcewich US Forest Service Webmaster DRM Civil Rights POC Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360.891.5024 - Voice | 360.891.5045 - Fax dlapcew...@fs.fed.us People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- George Bernard Shaw “…where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” --Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester, 1905 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- -- Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. Henry Kissinger *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
2009/7/2 Dennis Lapcewich dlapcew...@fs.fed.us: If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye surgery, please sit down. 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are color-blind, please sit down. 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please sit down. Those who are left standing have little to no immediate need for web accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being disabled, for all intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web accessibility. While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility questionable, to say the least. I'd be careful of overstating the case like this, as it can undermine the whole argument. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
Hi all, I believe making sites accessible is very important. We are all used to ramps near stairs, lifts near escalators, lowered curbs at intersections. We need to get used to baking in time into our projects for accessible elements. Such elements are hidden headings (to aid semantics), skip links (to aid navigation), non-Javascript styles (to enable interaction with all content) and also high-contrast style sheets for vision-impaired users. I don't believe that integrating accessibility into a project adds a significant cost to a project anyway. I found that some of these elements take quite some time to integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an hour because you also have to edit the script. If you haven't considered accessibility in your company before you'll find that a lot of time goes by convincing the backing parties (Product Managers, Project Managers) to take it on board. For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. They're not pretty, but usable. The biggest challenge with this kind of CSS is to keep up with development and remind oneself to update the code. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
I think it is pretty good. But one slight irony/anomaly - the 'low vision' link is in pretty small font. Took me a while to find it... notetoselftime for new glasses prescription/notetoself jim On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Jens-Uwe Korffjko...@fairfaxdigital.com.au wrote: Hi all, I believe making sites accessible is very important. We are all used to ramps near stairs, lifts near escalators, lowered curbs at intersections. We need to get used to baking in time into our projects for accessible elements. Such elements are hidden headings (to aid semantics), skip links (to aid navigation), non-Javascript styles (to enable interaction with all content) and also high-contrast style sheets for vision-impaired users. I don't believe that integrating accessibility into a project adds a significant cost to a project anyway. I found that some of these elements take quite some time to integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an hour because you also have to edit the script. If you haven't considered accessibility in your company before you'll find that a lot of time goes by convincing the backing parties (Product Managers, Project Managers) to take it on board. For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. They're not pretty, but usable. The biggest challenge with this kind of CSS is to keep up with development and remind oneself to update the code. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- _ Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
On 30 Jun 2009, at 16:46, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/ ). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. They're not pretty, but usable. I believe a better solution to this issue is to work at the level of the browser, or operating system, rather than on site by site basis. i.e creating really intelligent browser plug-ins or applications that are able to interpret the mess on the internet and make it more usable to all. This solution means that everyone could customise their experience to make it suitable for them. On the smh travel site you have only two options (normal and low vision) to cater for the many hundreds of levels of vision impairment. The current situation seems to be that most designers do nothing about accessibility, a few make an attempt and fail, but only a few get anywhere towards succeeding. If a company/designer has a certain amount of time/money to spend on accessibility, perhaps the best way to spend it would be to donate it to free accessibility projects. I think this would probably have a greater positive effect on the web. After all, the few people that do spend any time at all on making their websites accessible, probably aren't going to be experts in accessibility, so probably won't do a very good job of it. Perhaps the WSG would be a good institution for co-ordinating such a scheme for donating money to accessible software projects? Andy *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
At 6/29/2009 11:46 PM, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: I found that some of these elements take quite some time to integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an hour because you also have to edit the script. By non-Javascript states do you mean that the website should work in the absence of JavaScript? I like to think that this is where web development should begin, with JavaScript added to enhance, not to provide core functionality. For an example of a high-contrast version may I suggest to check out the Sydney Morning Herald's Travel section (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/). Click on Low vision in the navigation bar (We're going to replace low vision with high contrast since the former can be perceived as discriminatory). The styles you see then have been developed together with a vision-impaired person. FYI, when I click on Low vision and get the high-contrast stylesheet, that right-most menu pick changes to High contrast and is highlighted, indicating that I am now on the high-contrast page. I click it again and I return to the starting stylesheet and the menu pick changes to Normal contrast. This is inconsistent -- first you're using the menu pick as a sign post to another state, and then you're using it as a current state indicator. Was this deliberate? It feels broken to me. Usually I click on menu items in order to go to the named item or to invoke the named change. You're using the menu pick initially in this way, but after you begin using it, it becomes an indicator of the current state rather than a sign post pointing off-stage. I would choose just one of those models, leaning toward sign post. If you want to indicate the current state, I would display both states and highlight the current one. Also, to ditto Jim Croft, it's terribly ironic that this menu pick becomes large enough for a person with limited vision to read only after it's been selected. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: Hi all, I believe making sites accessible is very important. We are all used to ramps near stairs, lifts near escalators, lowered curbs at intersections. We need to get used to baking in time into our projects for accessible elements. [...] I agree wholeheartedly. These improvements serve far more people than those originally targeted, too. The cost should not be high, either - I think it's more a mind-set than hard labor. If I may make one suggestion: you could place a link to, say, the BBC accessibility pages[1] and/or the RNIB Surf Right toolbar[2] on your pages. That's what I plan to do, anyway. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/help/accessibility/ [2] http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_downloads.hcsp Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
Hi, thank you for your thoughts and feedback. After all, the few people that do spend any time at all on making their websites accessible, probably aren't going to be experts in accessibility, so probably won't do a very good job of it. Yes and no. If we had no pioneers which inherently cannot make a very good job we wouldn't have innovation. I rather make a not-so-good attempt in accessibility than leaving it and wait for others to come up with something. FYI, when I click on Low vision and get the high-contrast stylesheet, that right-most menu pick changes to High contrast ... I know. As I said we are in the process of changing low vision to high contrast and that's what you get in the interim. Sorry. Will be cleaned up in one of the future releases. it's terribly ironic that this menu pick becomes large enough for a person with limited vision to read only after it's been selected. Well, you know that you've got theory and practice. In theory I agree with you and would make the link large and contrasty. In practice however we are bound by the constraints of a design to which many groups have to say yay or nay. The above-the-fold area is the most competitive part of any design. Responding to Jim's comment about [people too proud to wear] glasses: You would be surprised how many people are in that very same situation. They make up a significant number who actually benefit from accessible websites. Is there any other strong arguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? I'd like to know too. On the Sydney Morning Herald in June less than 0.5% of users had JS disabled. Maybe we should drop that support? Anyone willing to share their numbers/reasons? Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
