Despite some minor flaws, Joe Clark's "Building Accessible Websites" is still one of the best around. Captioning of quicktime (you mean via SMIL, I assume) is still not widely implemented due to flaky support in certain areas http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004AprJun/0651.html Of course, you'll never find a single <ominous voice>Comprehensive Accessibility Text</ominous voice>, as the field is constantly evolving and changing. What you can get, though, is books covering the majority of the basis, and follow that up with good practice examples. They're out there, you just need to look in the right places (and frequent lists like the above featured WAI-IG, or forums such as www.accessifyforum.com for instance).
Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: ckimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 June 2004 15:29 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? > > > Hi, > > Lee would recommend a comprehensive accessibility text. I've scoured > Amazon to the point of red eye, and have found nothing but > how to pass > Bobby. This text should include captioning of Quicktime, and other > dynamic media considerations. > > C > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 05:47 AM, Lee Roberts wrote: > > > Jesse, > > I'll agree it makes them think about it for about ... 10 seconds. > > Then they > > go and start using those automated evaluators and mess it all up. > > I've used > > every evaluator there is and none come as close to meeting my > > experience as > > I would like. > > > > You can pass those automated test very easily and then > totally ignore > > some > > very important elements. One accessibility presentation I > went to had > > a > > company representative look like a fool when he was showing > how JAWS > > worked > > with their pages. The designer passed all the automated tests, but > > failed > > to lineate the table correctly so JAWS was jumping all around the > > screen > > reading things out of order. Yep, Bobby said it passed - > Bobby lied > > too. > > > > Yes, much of the Assistive Technology relies upon > Microsoft. Didn't > > you > > realize that Microsoft doesn't allow anyone access to their core > > functions? > > Oh, that's last millennia's news. > > > > We should fire the federal judges that ruled in favor of > Microsoft. > > They > > just gave too much power to Microsoft and I'm not talking their > > anti-competitive attitudes. I'm talking embedding their browser > > further > > into their operating systems. It's going to get to the point that > > their > > browser will enable any web site to take control of the > computer again > > ... > > just like when we used to cause hard drive formats. > > > > Jesse, please tell me how Canada falls under Section 508. > I realize > > Canada > > falls under our telecommunications acts, but I wasn't aware that > > Canada had > > to comply with Section 508. As I understood it, Canada's rules, > > although > > not totally accepted, required bi-lingual sites and even more > > accessibility > > than Section 508 requires. Please correct me if I'm wrong; > I like to > > keep > > up with how other countries are handling the issues. > > > > Thanks, > > Lee Roberts > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J Rodgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 5:42 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? > > > > > >> Have you looked at the other assistive technologies available? > > > > Yes I work closely with our Office for Persons with > Disabilities, even > > presented at their Assistive Technology Fair last year. This year I > > will as > > well and sounds like it will be even bigger than last year. > There are > > some > > very cool technologies out there. > > > >> England and the other countries requiring accessible web > sites state > >> 508 did not meet their requirements for accessible web > sites. So, how > >> can we state that Section 508 is the end-all solution when other > >> governments are saying it isn't enough? > > > > Not saying it was an end-all, just saying it was a decent place to > > start. At > > the very least it is forcing a lot of software developers and web > > designers > > to think accessible design. > > > >> AT developers have the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines > they have > >> to follow. There is at least one person from the JAWS team on the > >> working group. > >> > >> Since JAWS uses Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Accessibility > >> Agent, I would hope that Microsoft starts supporting > standards better > >> than > > they do. > >> And that they stop with their proprietary stuff. Netscape > has begun > >> to support OBJECT so we don't need to use EMBED/NOEMBED any longer > >> unless you want to support earlier versions. Oh my, do we want to > >> support Netscape 4.x? I don't and don't even come close > to trying any > > longer. > > > > That is likely the biggest problem with Assistive technology, it > > relies on > > other over priced bloat ware that is unstable at the best > of times and > > refuses to follow any standards properly. Why not move to Moz? Why > > build > > Assistive technologies for Linux where you have more > control? Oh that > > is > > rhetorical. > > > > One thing I did notice with a lot of Assistive Technologies is that > > they > > rely heavily on Microsoft. I think that is a shame. > > > > Jesse > > > > > > ***************************************************** > > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See > > http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > ***************************************************** > > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > > ***************************************************** > > > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ***************************************************** > > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
