I am working on a site for web standards, it will include articles and the such. Contact me on my main e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you are interested. Thanks.
On 4/13/05, Shane Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cole, > > This is my first time to reply to anything on the list, so I hope I am > doing it correctly:) > > I recommend "Constructing Accessible Web Sites" published by glasshaus. > This book focuses on the Section 508 Standards and the WAI, but filters > all the legalese. It also gives code examples and application examples. > I'm about half-way through it right now, and it has made a huge difference > in the way I write code. > > Shane > Lubbock, TX > > > I've never tried testing my code for accessibility before but I'm > becoming > > more interested in the topic. After some web-research, I've found a > > mountian of information/guidelines/priority checkpoints (etc., etc.) to > > wade through and consider. My eyes are glazing over. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > First question: Is there a site anywhere that can tell me (clearly and > > concisely) something like: > > > > To achieve section 508 compliance you have to: 1) do this, 2) do that, 3) > > do the other thing. > > > > Most of the stuff I've seen is very heavy on reasons, but somewhat light > > on the "you just need to include this, in this way" type of information. > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > Second question: > > > > Just as a test, I ran one of my pages through a site called the Cynthia > > Says Portal (http://www.contentquality.com/Default.asp) > > > > According to the Section 508 report option (as well as the WCAG - > Priority > > 1,2,3 option) the pages I submitted to the validator all "passed" > > according to the validator's result list. > > > > Well, that made me smile - but also wonder at the same time. > > > > Are these kind of sites a reliable way to verfiy code for Accessibility > > for Section 508 and/or WCAG Checkpoints? > > > > Like, if a client were to say to me "Is the site 508 compliant?" can I > > say, "well, yeah, the Cynthia Says portal reported that it was. Good > > enough for me." > > > > Well, IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH? > > > > Is there a better on-line validator I should be running my pages through > > vs Cynthia Says? Since I've become interested in this issue , I want to > > start off on the right foot in order to make sure these automated, > > web-based results are telling me what I need to hear. > > > > Bottom line is that I guess it'ss hard for me to believed that I've > > "aced-it" on the first time out. > > > > Any and all input greatly appreciated. > > > > Cole Kuryakin > > Subic Bay, Philippines > > > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > -- Anthony Timberlake Co-Owner of StaticHost Internet Services - http://www.statichost.co.uk Head Director at Spike Radio - http://www.spikeradio.org ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
