On 20/1/09 06:24, Anthony Ziebell wrote:
Is it true XHTML 1.1 supports modularization and thus, ARIA, except for
the role attribute / values?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Modularization, in XHTML's case, refers to the splitting of XHTML
itself into modules. This allows the
Chris, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I did not know about the up
coming court case.
I have seen a letter Mr Kerr sent a company regarding an inaccessible
website:
http://forums.port80.asn.au/showthread.php?t=12018#6
and received and replied to email Mr Kerr sent as a response to my
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nick Cowie cowie.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently I have a different opinion from Mr Kerr on what makes a web site
accessible under the Disabilities Discrimination Act.
Care to expand on that point? Do his views jibe with what most web
developers would
I thought a bit more about this and I realised perhaps a better option
would be to display the JS-injected messages and errors that a screen
reader could not read but upon submission of the form, reload the page
and provide all the messages and errors again (the form could not be
completed
A timely blog post by Andy...and this marks the third anniversary of the
same issues being rehashed
http://forabeautifulweb.com/blog/about/designing_around_haccessibility/
though Ben Ward's efforts are to be noted...see
On 20/1/09 08:31, Michael MD wrote:
If something like February 9th appears on a page is that really
human-friendly?
. what year is that? is it coming up ? ... or am I looking at an old
page about something from last year? ...
Um... depends, look at the surrounding text in this test case:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Michael MD md...@spraci.com wrote:
...btw looking at the examples draws attention to a big usability problem
with so-called human dates...
(which has little to do with microformats or markup .. its more a problem
with culture and education)
If something
From: Chris Knowles
I wouldn't be waiting for ARIA to get out of draft before using it :) It
has pretty good support in browsers already so get stuck in. And because
essentially all you are doing with ARIA is adding attributes to tags,
the worst that can happen is your pages no longer
From: Chris Knowles
yes, so you still run your code through the validator and make sure it
only fails on the ARIA attributes - that way you save yourself a whole
lot of trouble. I don't really understand inserting attributes with
javascript just so you get a tick from the validator? Maybe
Chris Taylor wrote:
From: Chris Knowles
I wouldn't be waiting for ARIA to get out of draft before using it :) It
has pretty good support in browsers already so get stuck in. And because
essentially all you are doing with ARIA is adding attributes to tags,
the worst that can happen is your
Chris Taylor wrote:
Adding ARIA attributes using JavaScript is therefore part of progressive
enhancement
does that actually work? My understanding is that one problem ARIA
addresses is that when javascript alters the DOM, assistive technologies
don't necessarily get notified of the changes.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Knowles
does that actually work? My understanding is that one problem ARIA
addresses is that when javascript alters the DOM, assistive technologies
don't necessarily get notified of the changes. So do they get notified
that you've injected ARIA
2009/1/20 Matthew Pennell matthewpenn...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nick Cowie cowie.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently I have a different opinion from Mr Kerr on what makes a web
site accessible under the Disabilities Discrimination Act.
Care to expand on that point? Do his
I would feel everyone in cooperation would be the way to go. Browser
vendors (going to call them vendors, for short) need to understand that just
because they want what they want does not matter as much as what is needed.
If a major change is needed and vendors do not want to follow along, then
On 20 Jan 2009, at 19:18, Brett Patterson wrote:
I would feel everyone in cooperation would be the way to go. Browser
vendors (going to call them vendors, for short) need to understand
that just because they want what they want does not matter as much
as what is needed. If a major change
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Brett Patterson
inspiron.patters...@gmail.com wrote:
I would feel everyone in cooperation would be the way to go. Browser
vendors (going to call them vendors, for short) need to understand that just
because they want what they want does not matter as much as
Thanks Benjamin. The only troubles we face with
= XHTML 1.1 and = HTML5 is related to progressive enhancement.
It's more of a business decision... do we enhance our sites and make
them a whole lot more accessible, meanwhile dropping support for older
browsers? Or do we sit and wait until older
2009/1/21 Anthony Ziebell anth...@fatpublisher.com.au:
Someone mentioned using JavaScript to implement ARIA parameters. This is a
good idea... but just how accessible would that be to a vision impaired
visitor with JavaScript turned off?
I think the idea behind it is that because you also have
On 20/1/09 22:47, Anthony Ziebell wrote:
It's more of a business decision... do we enhance our sites and make
them a whole lot more accessible, meanwhile dropping support for
older browsers?
Other than an accessibility technology inspecting the DOM for ARIA
attributes, what makes you think
Oh, also... there is a requirement for our pages to validate (hence I
can only see JavaScript as a valid option at this point?)
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On 20/1/09 22:47, Anthony Ziebell wrote:
It's more of a business decision... do we enhance our sites and make
them a whole lot more
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:15:38 +1100, Anthony Ziebell wrote:
Oh, also... there is a requirement for our pages to validate (hence I can
only see
JavaScript as a valid option at this point?)
*Is* there a requirement for our pages to validate? I would have
thought that making a page more
I think it's a clash between microformats VS html AND accessibility
standards.
On Mon, January 19, 2009 12:48 am, Ben Rowe wrote:
on microformats.org, it suggests the ABBR element and title attribute
for machine code. however, title attribute for this element will be read
out to a screen
Hi,
Just tabbed through the page and the login form are the very last
elements on the page to be hit, needs a lower tab-index, not very nice
in terms of accessibility.
cheers
Luke
Stewart Griffiths wrote:
Harsh is fine, it's a critique / review we asked for ;o)
Got rid of all but one
Hi Alan
Interesting that they justify layout tables on the basis that some users may
have IE5, yet have a slow, graphics-heavy site which will take forever to
load without a broadband connection. How many users I wonder have a screen
width of more than 1024px plus IE5 plus broadband?
Elizabeth
24 matches
Mail list logo
