Re: [WSG] Bobby question
On 6 Mar 2004, at 20:44, russ weakley wrote: Here are some other online accessibility tools: snip .. and if I may be so bold, you might find some of these useful (and there's a pop-up window generator there too): http://www.accessify.com/tools-and-wizards/default.asp Ian Lloyd ~ WEB: http://www.ian-lloyd.com/ | AIM: uklloydi Round-the-World trip blog: http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
On 6 Mar 2004, at 21:44, Martin Chapman wrote: I was finding it bit daunting, since the site I am re-coding is based on ASP.NET, and as I am sure many of you know... Microsoft + ASP.NET + web = 666 Reall, what we need is a book that explains how to achieve acceptable levels of accessibility using tools/technologies like ASP.net and (deep breath) FrontPage. There are a lot of sites built by admin type bods using FrontPage because, well, it's cheap or comes as part of a standard desktop software install for come corporates. it's there so it gets used and we know what the end result is. I'm not sure if such a book exists at this time, but I believe that Molly Holzschlag (who's written some 15 or so books on the web and is a WaSP member) was working on something like this some time back. Ian Lloyd ~ WEB: http://www.ian-lloyd.com/ | AIM: uklloydi Round-the-World trip blog: http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
On 7 Mar 2004, at 12:40, Peter Firminger wrote:
Having said that, something like:
a href=copyright.htm onClick=window.open('',
'copyright','toolbar=0,location=0,directories=0,status=0,menubar=0,scro
llbar
s=auto,resizable=0,width=310,height=300') target=copyright
will still work ok as the default behaviour of the href will generally
be
used anyway.
I would advise a couple of changes:
- onClick becomes onclick for xhtml compliance
- don't have the url in two places (can make future updates tricky, and
may mean that link checkers don't highlight a broken link, e.g if you
change the href part but not the onclick part), so use this.href in the
onclick part
a href=copyright.htm onclick=window.open(this.href,
'copyright','toolbar=0,location=0,directories=0,status=0,menubar=0,scrol
lbar
s=auto,resizable=0,width=310,height=300') target=copyright
Ian Lloyd
~
WEB: http://www.ian-lloyd.com/ | AIM: uklloydi
Round-the-World trip blog: http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Just found this : If the script cannot be made accessible one viable solution is to include a NOSCRIPT tag with alternative and equivalent content and interaction (via a form). What do they mean bythe above? With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/07/04 16:33:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question My next question is for e.g. using the style switcher js from ALA, or whichever js written by programmers for your website. Will you change the all commands tosatisfy the priority even if the script is non-applicable to lynx users? PS: Can you see better now Peter? This just make me realise that with all the concentration for accessibility on websites, I forgot about others :P Good wakeup call. With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/07/04 09:54:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question Hi Jaime, Yes it's very important. Many differently-abled people don't use a mouse. They use the keyboard to navigate around a page/site (generally much faster and more efficiently than any mouse user). By using onclick or onmousedown etc. you may be blocking their access to whatever the resource is. Having said that, something like: a href="" target="copyright" will still work ok as the default behaviour of the href will generally be used anyway. Best thing to do is put the mouse under your desk and navigate with the keyboard alone and see what you can and cannot do on your site. Or, go to one of the Public Lynx access sites mentioned on http://www.subir.com/lynx/public_lynx.html with telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us/ being a good one. quote On Priority 1 or 2..I forgot which. There is this rule that states that one should not use onclick for _javascript_. The problem is that most programmers uses onclick and other actions that requires mouse. Do you guys try to satisfy this rule? I was thinking if I got to satisfy that rule, this means that I have to mess around with all the _javascript_s. This thought puts me off. /quote Please try to use plain text email for this list as your email colours are very difficult for me (colour-blind) to read. A hint to all. You should (with a decent email client) be able to set it to send palin text only based on the address [EMAIL PROTECTED]. This should throw a warning if you try to send html email. P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * .
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Thanks Peter for the wonderful explanation :)
I tested it straight away but facing some problem with Strict DTD.
This is what I have in my html
script type="text/_javascript_"var d=new Date();yr=d.getFullYear();if (yr!=2003)document.write("- "+yr);/scriptnoscript- 2004!/noscript
and
script type="text/_javascript_"dT();/scriptnoscriptGMT +8/noscript
This is the errors
Line 224, column 55: character data is not allowed here script type="text/_javascript_"dT();/scriptnoscriptGMT +8/noscript ^Line 683, column 9: document type does not allow element "noscript" here; missing one of "object", "ins", "del", "map", "button" start-tag noscript- 2004!/noscript ^Line 683, column 10: character data is not allowed here noscript- 2004!/noscript
With Regards
Jaime Wong
~~
SODesires Design Team
http://www.sodesires.com
~~
---Original Message---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03/07/04 20:11:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Jaime,
A noscript tag is read only when _javascript_ isn't present (except in
Netscape 4 as I recall but may have been Netscape 3 which shows both the
script and the noscript content and this was when it WAS the dominant
browser! Someone may like to check that but I can't be bothered as I never
use it any more).
So you would have something like:
script language="_javascript_" type="text/_javascript_"
!--
document.write("pSomething if JS enabled or even present/p")
//--
/script
noscript
pSomething else if JS not available./p
/noscript
Much like noframes.
A search for noscript on Google brings up everything you need to know in
the first 5 links.
However, for something like onclick this doesn't work. The best thing to do
is test it in Lynx and make sure the default behaviour of the link or button
still works. If you're doing something else with onclick (than a form
element or link) then you may well have to rethink it. Remember, Google (the
worlds biggest blind user) may not be able to follow it if it is
inaccessible so your pages may remain hidden to the world.
As for the other question (below), much the same answer. However, when we do
it, if you don't have _javascript_ turned on, you simply don't get the
styleswitcher links at all as they wouldn't work anyway. If you do have
_javascript_, and you tab to the link and hit enter, the appropriate behaviour
is invoked.
Again, see http://www.gt.nsw.gov.au/ and try throwing the mouse away and
turning _javascript_ off to see what happens.
You just have to think about it carefully as you put it together and then
test the pants off it.
quote
My next question is for e.g. using the style switcher js from ALA, or
whichever js written by programmers for your website. Will you change the
all commands to satisfy the priority even if the script is non-applicable to
lynx users?
PS: Can you see better now Peter? This just make me realise that with all
the concentration for accessibility on websites, I forgot about others :P
Good wakeup call.
/quote
Yes thanks, but plain text beats it every time on a mail list :-)
P
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
.
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Left these info out.. This page here http://www.sodesires.com/links/index.html is using transitional and the rest using strict. You can have a look at this page http://www.sodesires.com/weblog which is in strict as it has the calendar javascript on it as well. Both DTDs are invalid due to noscript g! I wouldn't even bother to put this in if not for priority one. With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/07/04 20:49:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question Thanks Peter for the wonderful explanation :) I tested it straight away but facing some problem with Strict DTD. This is what I have in my html script type=text/javascript var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear(); if (yr!=2003) document.write(- +yr); /script noscript- 2004!/noscript and script type=text/javascriptdT();/script noscriptGMT +8/noscript This is the errors Line 224, column 55: character data is not allowed here script type=text/javascriptdT();/scriptnoscriptGMT +8/noscript ^ Line 683, column 9: document type does not allow element noscript here; missing one of object, ins, del, map, button start-tag noscript- 2004!/noscript ^ Line 683, column 10: character data is not allowed here noscript- 2004!/noscript With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/07/04 20:11:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question Hi Jaime, A noscript tag is read only when JavaScript isn't present (except in Netscape 4 as I recall but may have been Netscape 3 which shows both the script and the noscript content and this was when it WAS the dominant browser! Someone may like to check that but I can't be bothered as I never use it any more). So you would have something like: script language=JavaScript type=text/javascript !-- document.write(pSomething if JS enabled or even present/p) //-- /script noscript pSomething else if JS not available./p /noscript Much like noframes. A search for noscript on Google brings up everything you need to know in the first 5 links. However, for something like onclick this doesn't work. The best thing to do is test it in Lynx and make sure the default behaviour of the link or button still works. If you're doing something else with onclick (than a form element or link) then you may well have to rethink it. Remember, Google (the worlds biggest blind user) may not be able to follow it if it is inaccessible so your pages may remain hidden to the world. As for the other question (below), much the same answer. However, when we do it, if you don't have JavaScript turned on, you simply don't get the styleswitcher links at all as they wouldn't work anyway. If you do have JavaScript, and you tab to the link and hit enter, the appropriate behaviour is invoked. Again, see http://www.gt.nsw.gov.au/ and try throwing the mouse away and turning JavaScript off to see what happens. You just have to think about it carefully as you put it together and then test the pants off it. quote My next question is for e.g. using the style switcher js from ALA, or whichever js written by programmers for your website. Will you change the all commands to satisfy the priority even if the script is non-applicable to lynx users? PS: Can you see better now Peter? This just make me realise that with all the concentration for accessibility on websites, I forgot about others :P Good wakeup call. /quote Yes thanks, but plain text beats it every time on a mail list :-) P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Justin Martin! Sorry about the previous post, it should have been addressed to Martin not to Justin, but it may be interesting for anyone who is thinking of buying the Bobby CD. Guess it's just too early here in the UK. Apologies again, JG --- Justin French [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday, March 6, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Martin Chapman wrote: Just a quick question regarding the Bobby accessibility site. I am currently working on a site to convert to standards/validation specs. However, 99% of the site is user/password protected. I get round W3C validating the protected pages with Firefox's Web Developer extension (Validate Local HTML option). However, how can I do the same with the Bobby site? I noticed they have a CD for purchase, would this allow me to do such a thing? Depending on how many different pages/templates you need to validate with Bobby, this may prove to be enough: 1. login, and visit one of the pages 2. View Source on that page 3. Select All, Copy, and Paste into a new file 4. Save the file as plain HTML 5. Upload this file to a public web space somewhere 6. test accessibility with Bobby on that URL Alternatively, copy/mirror the site to another server/directory, remove the password restrictions, and validate that way. Alternatively, *temporarily* change the way the site responds to logins, so that you're using GET vars instead of POST, then supply bobby with a URL that includes a temporary user:pass combo, so that you can check the validity that way. Really though, just pay attention to the way Bobby reacts to other pages on the site, and make sure those problems are fixed on the protected pages as well. Same goes for WAG -- you can always manually check the pages for validity. After a while, building accessible pages becomes an automatic part of what you do. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * _ Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Sorry if this is such a dumb question that it displays more of my ignorance than anything else, but this is the second time in the last few weeks I've heard references to Bobby, but Who the hell is Bobby? And what does he have to do with us? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Michael, hope this helps you. Bobby will allow you to test web pages and help expose and repair barriers to accessibility and encourage compliance with existing accessibility guidelines, such as Section 508 and the W3C's WCAG. View this at - http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp It's just that thier own site above does not pass their tests, so it's a bit of an enigma to me! Regards, JG --- Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if this is such a dumb question that it displays more of my ignorance than anything else, but this is the second time in the last few weeks I've heard references to Bobby, but Who the hell is Bobby? And what does he have to do with us? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * _ Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Mike, Bobby is an accessibility checker with a huge chip on it's shoulder. http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp In my opinion it supposes too much and is basically a self righteous piece of rubbish. Take www.gt.nsw.gov.au for example. http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gt.nsw.go v.au%2Foutput=Submitgl=wcag1-aaatest= We went to a huge amount of trouble to do everything right on this site, including a style switcher for various visual options. Because of that and some other absolute crap it tells us that repair is needed. No! Wrong. Bad bobby. Bad tool. P -Original Message- From: Michael Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 8:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Bobby question Sorry if this is such a dumb question that it displays more of my ignorance than anything else, but this is the second time in the last few weeks I've heard references to Bobby, but Who the hell is Bobby? And what does he have to do with us? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Michael, There are other accessibility tools that have better reputations than Bobby now. Bobby has received growing criticism over the last few years - here is an example: http://www.evolt.org/article/Why_Bobby_Approved_is_not_Enough/4090/9278/inde x.html?format=print Here are some other online accessibility tools: WAVE http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp UsableNet: http://www.usablenet.com/ Ask Alice: http://askalice.ssbtechnologies.com:8080/askalice/index.html Colour Contrast Analyser (excellent tool!): http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp HTH Russ Hi Michael, hope this helps you. Bobby will allow you to test web pages and help expose and repair barriers to accessibility and encourage compliance with existing accessibility guidelines, such as Section 508 and the W3C's WCAG. View this at - http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp It's just that thier own site above does not pass their tests, so it's a bit of an enigma to me! Regards, JG --- Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if this is such a dumb question that it displays more of my ignorance than anything else, but this is the second time in the last few weeks I've heard references to Bobby, but Who the hell is Bobby? And what does he have to do with us? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * _ Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * Thanks Russ --- Russ Weakley Max Design Phone: (02) 9410 2521 Mobile: 0403 433 980 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.maxdesign.com.au --- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Thanks everyone. I'll certainly check those alternatives out, thanks Russ. I was finding it bit daunting, since the site I am re-coding is based on ASP.NET, and as I am sure many of you know... Microsoft + ASP.NET + web = 666. The client doesn't really know what they want from the recoding. It's an education web site, and they need to obtain certain accreditation as so they can prove their accessibility. Obviously, Bobby was one of the buzzwords they picked up on. I promised W3C validation with an eye on Bobby and 508 etc. (thank goodness I didn't *promise* Bobby validation!) (By the way, if anyone knows of a good way round validating ASP.NET auto-generated code (i.e. asp:datagrid...), then I am very much all ears!!) On 6 Mar 2004, at 09:44, russ weakley wrote: Michael, There are other accessibility tools that have better reputations than Bobby now. Bobby has received growing criticism over the last few years - here is an example: http://www.evolt.org/article/Why_Bobby_Approved_is_not_Enough/4090/ 9278/inde x.html?format=print Here are some other online accessibility tools: WAVE http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp UsableNet: http://www.usablenet.com/ Ask Alice: http://askalice.ssbtechnologies.com:8080/askalice/index.html Colour Contrast Analyser (excellent tool!): http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp HTH Russ Hi Michael, hope this helps you. Bobby will allow you to test web pages and help expose and repair barriers to accessibility and encourage compliance with existing accessibility guidelines, such as Section 508 and the W3C's WCAG. View this at - http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp It's just that thier own site above does not pass their tests, so it's a bit of an enigma to me! Regards, JG --- Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if this is such a dumb question that it displays more of my ignorance than anything else, but this is the second time in the last few weeks I've heard references to Bobby, but Who the hell is Bobby? And what does he have to do with us? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * _ Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * Thanks Russ --- Russ Weakley Max Design Phone: (02) 9410 2521 Mobile: 0403 433 980 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.maxdesign.com.au --- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * Kind regards Martin Chapman -- Web development, identity and design. co-ord.com Limited 9 Tynwald Road West Kirby Merseyside CH48 4DA Tel: +44 (0)151 625 1443 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.co-ord.com -- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Martin, I'm not familiar with this at all. How much of this example would be auto-generated? One would assume that a lot of it could be fixed by putting things in the right place (scripts in the head section and adding a doctype). http://www.add2web.dk/aspdatagrid/Sample/default.asp P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Regarding accreditation, I reckon the best place to start is the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) which produces (amongst other things) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. These guidelines have include the all-important checkpoints that are broken into three priorities. Ideally, web developers must achieve priority 1, should achieve priority 2, and may achieve priority 3. The checklist is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html There are many professional accessibility experts who can evaluate your site against these checkpoints and provide you with a report - and this could be seen as accreditation (?). They would also provide far more detailed and informative feedback than tools like Alice, Bobby or WAVE. The key would be to read and get a handle on these checkpoints before you start your project so you can implement as much as possible during the process. If you implement checkpoints as part of the workflow, a professional evaluation should only be a confirmation of the checkpoints rather than a daunting list of changes you will have to implement to be accessible. There are also heaps of resources online that give info about making your site more accessible. An excellent start is here: http://www.skillswap.org/downloads/accessibility.pdf And, there is always this list if you get stuck. I am sure that there are accessibility experts lurking in our ranks that could help out if detailed technical information or assistance was required :) Russ Thanks everyone. I'll certainly check those alternatives out, thanks Russ. I was finding it bit daunting, since the site I am re-coding is based on ASP.NET, and as I am sure many of you know... Microsoft + ASP.NET + web = 666. The client doesn't really know what they want from the recoding. It's an education web site, and they need to obtain certain accreditation as so they can prove their accessibility. Obviously, Bobby was one of the buzzwords they picked up on. I promised W3C validation with an eye on Bobby and 508 etc. (thank goodness I didn't *promise* Bobby validation!) (By the way, if anyone knows of a good way round validating ASP.NET auto-generated code (i.e. asp:datagrid...), then I am very much all ears!!) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Thanks once again Russ... will take great care in reading those sites you've suggested. Did I mention I'm 3/4 throught the project :oO ;o) And, there is always this list if you get stuck. I am sure that there are accessibility experts lurking in our ranks that could help out if detailed technical information or assistance was required :) I've spotted one or two ;o) Russ Thanks everyone. I'll certainly check those alternatives out, thanks Russ. I was finding it bit daunting, since the site I am re-coding is based on ASP.NET, and as I am sure many of you know... Microsoft + ASP.NET + web = 666. The client doesn't really know what they want from the recoding. It's an education web site, and they need to obtain certain accreditation as so they can prove their accessibility. Obviously, Bobby was one of the buzzwords they picked up on. I promised W3C validation with an eye on Bobby and 508 etc. (thank goodness I didn't *promise* Bobby validation!) (By the way, if anyone knows of a good way round validating ASP.NET auto-generated code (i.e. asp:datagrid...), then I am very much all ears!!) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * Kind regards Martin Chapman -- Web development, identity and design. co-ord.com Limited 9 Tynwald Road West Kirby Merseyside CH48 4DA Tel: +44 (0)151 625 1443 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.co-ord.com -- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
Uh I have a question on bobby too. On Priority 1 or 2..I forgot which. Thereis this rule that states that one should not use onclick for _javascript_. The problem is that most programmers uses onclick and other actions that requires mouse. Do you guys try to satisfy this rule? I was thinking if I got to satisfy that rule, this means that I have to mess around with all the _javascript_s. This thought puts me off. With Regards, Jaime Wong ~~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/06/04 20:07:24 To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Bobby question Regarding accreditation, I reckon the best place to start is the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) which produces (amongst other things) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. These guidelines have include the all-important checkpoints that are broken into three priorities. Ideally, web developers must achieve priority 1, should achieve priority 2, and may achieve priority 3. The checklist is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html There are many professional accessibility experts who can evaluate your site against these checkpoints and provide you with a report - and this could be seen as accreditation (?). They would also provide far more detailed and informative feedback than tools like Alice, Bobby or WAVE. The key would be to read and get a handle on these checkpoints before you start your project so you can implement as much as possible during the process. If you implement checkpoints as part of the workflow, a professional evaluation should only be a confirmation of the checkpoints rather than a daunting list of changes you will have to implement to be "accessible". There are also heaps of resources online that give info about making your site more accessible. An excellent start is here: http://www.skillswap.org/downloads/accessibility.pdf And, there is always this list if you get stuck. I am sure that there are accessibility experts lurking in our ranks that could help out if detailed technical information or assistance was required:) Russ Thanks everyone. I'll certainly check those alternatives out, thanks Russ. I was finding it bit daunting, since the site I am re-coding is based on ASP.NET, and as I am sure many of you know... Microsoft + ASP.NET + web = 666. The client doesn't really know what they want from the recoding. It's an education web site, and they need to obtain certain accreditation as so they can prove their accessibility. Obviously, Bobby was one of the buzzwords they picked up on. I promised W3C validation with an eye on Bobby and 508 etc. (thank goodness I didn't *promise* Bobby validation!) (By the way, if anyone knows of a good way round validating ASP.NET auto-generated code (i.e. asp:datagrid...), then I am very much all ears!!) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * .
RE: [WSG] Bobby question
Hi Jaime,
Yes it's very important. Many differently-abled people don't use a mouse.
They use the keyboard to navigate around a page/site (generally much faster
and more efficiently than any mouse user). By using onclick or onmousedown
etc. you may be blocking their access to whatever the resource is.
Having said that, something like:
a href=copyright.htm onClick=window.open('',
'copyright','toolbar=0,location=0,directories=0,status=0,menubar=0,scrollbar
s=auto,resizable=0,width=310,height=300') target=copyright
will still work ok as the default behaviour of the href will generally be
used anyway.
Best thing to do is put the mouse under your desk and navigate with the
keyboard alone and see what you can and cannot do on your site.
Or, go to one of the Public Lynx access sites mentioned on
http://www.subir.com/lynx/public_lynx.html with
telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us/ being a good one.
quote
On Priority 1 or 2..I forgot which. There is this rule that states that one
should not use onclick for JavaScript. The problem is that most programmers
uses onclick and other actions that requires mouse.
Do you guys try to satisfy this rule? I was thinking if I got to satisfy
that rule, this means that I have to mess around with all the javascripts.
This thought puts me off.
/quote
Please try to use plain text email for this list as your email colours are
very difficult for me (colour-blind) to read. A hint to all. You should
(with a decent email client) be able to set it to send palin text only based
on the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] This should throw a warning if you
try to send html email.
P
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
Re: [WSG] Bobby question
On Saturday, March 6, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Martin Chapman wrote: Just a quick question regarding the Bobby accessibility site. I am currently working on a site to convert to standards/validation specs. However, 99% of the site is user/password protected. I get round W3C validating the protected pages with Firefox's Web Developer extension (Validate Local HTML option). However, how can I do the same with the Bobby site? I noticed they have a CD for purchase, would this allow me to do such a thing? Depending on how many different pages/templates you need to validate with Bobby, this may prove to be enough: 1. login, and visit one of the pages 2. View Source on that page 3. Select All, Copy, and Paste into a new file 4. Save the file as plain HTML 5. Upload this file to a public web space somewhere 6. test accessibility with Bobby on that URL Alternatively, copy/mirror the site to another server/directory, remove the password restrictions, and validate that way. Alternatively, *temporarily* change the way the site responds to logins, so that you're using GET vars instead of POST, then supply bobby with a URL that includes a temporary user:pass combo, so that you can check the validity that way. Really though, just pay attention to the way Bobby reacts to other pages on the site, and make sure those problems are fixed on the protected pages as well. Same goes for WAG -- you can always manually check the pages for validity. After a while, building accessible pages becomes an automatic part of what you do. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
