One of the problems that is really annoying is the font-size. With a DOCTYPE the text shrinks to an unreadable size. From looking around at other good examples of accessible sites it seems that some use em's, and some use a mixture of px and % values. The current css for the site is a jumble of %'s and font sizes vary across different browsers.
-----Original Message----- From: russ weakley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:23 AM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Preparing for DOCTYPE Miles, I'd start with a safe option and go for HTML 4.01 transitional. It is easy to achieve and reliable. We've discussed XHTML doctypes and the issues at length on the list recently so no point going over that. I did a quick site validation forcing character encoding (also missing) and setting it to HTML 4.01: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edna.edu.au%2Fedna%2Fpage 1.html&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitiona l While the errors look daunting, there is a lot of global replacing that could solve a chunk of this stuff. There is a small article that may help on getting your site valid here: http://webboy.net/presentation/validation.cfm Russ > > The live version is www.edna.edu.au, but this currently has no DOCTYPE. > However I am testing different DOCTYPEs internally on a version of the site > templates that have had a lot of issues fixed. > > I have been instructed to apply as many Priority 1 and 2 accessibility > requirements as possible, and let me tell you it's not going to be easy as the > site design seems as though it was built for eye candy rather than usability! > However I'd like to try and at least get the existing design somewhat > accessible before I convince them a redesign is a good idea... > > Miles. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] Preparing for DOCTYPE > > > > Post a link to the list! > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ ***************************************************** ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
