It amazes me that they would rather spend money on solicitors than web
design. I am tracking this sites as well, only 500 html validation
errors today. The web design team are Bullseye Design which is a
trademarked Target Brand. Maybe they have in-house solicitors sitting
around with nothing to do?
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html#targetstore
It is a fantastic site to ridicule, I want to see the solicitors defend
it. Target stated that:
"We believe our Web site complies with all applicable laws and are
committed to vigorously defending this case. We will continue to
implement technology that increases the usability of our Web site for
all our guests, including those with disabilities"
Tim
On 23/05/2007, at 2:16 PM, Steve Green wrote:
"when the oh-so-clever designer has abused CSS to make the seventh item
appear in third place"
We had a classic case of this yesterday while doing one of our JAWS
demos
for a group of developers (www.accessibility.co.uk/free_jaws_demo.htm
in
case anyone is interested in coming to the next one). The website was
www.target.com and among the many horrors were a group of image maps
containing maybe a hundred links or more. None of us was able to work
out
which link had focus at any time because it jumped around all over the
page,
and often the 'alt' attributes were not the same as the corresponding
graphical representation of text.
It's a fantastic site for the demo because it includes every example of
"don't ever do it this way". My guess is they PhotoShopped the design
then
turned the whole thing into an image map with a random tab sequence
and no
'alt' attributes for half the links. And they wonder why they're
getting
sued!
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Nick Fitzsimons
Sent: 23 May 2007 03:04
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Photo gallery markup & semantics
On 23 May 2007, at 02:15:30, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
Although it might be important from an accessibility perspective that
an unsighted user be able to say "the third one on that page"
without having to count the preceding list items - hmm, now that's
something to think about..
Not quite sure how they'd say "the third one" without actually having
counted, though...am I missing something? Or do you mean in situations
where a sighted user and a blind user discuss the page?
If that's the concern, then *any* CSS that visually changes position
of things on screen would be a problem (just thinking about sighted
users saying "the X that comes before Y" not realising that X was
absolutely positioned above Y, for instance)...which I'd say is an
edge case anyway.
I'm assuming here that a screen reader imparts the additional
information
implied by the distinction between ol and ul, such as specifying
"Three"
rather than "Bullet". I haven't checked, but I believe that is the
case from
previous tests.
From that perspective, I was thinking in terms of the situation where
a
blind user, having heard the description of something they like, might
find
it easier to phone the company to place an order. If the screen reader
said
something like "List item: Three: blue sweater" instead of "List item:
Bullet: blue sweater", then rather than the user having to count and
remember that the blue one was the third item description they heard
on that
page, they would be able to tell the person taking the order that the
thing
they want is "the third one on the sweaters page". Sometimes people's
interaction with web sites can lead to interaction with the rest of
reality
:-)
It seems to me possible that the use of an ordered, as opposed to an
unordered, list might offer an additional affordance to a blind user.
Of course, that's just speculation on my part - but it could be
something
worth checking out in user testing.
The next problem then arises when the oh-so-clever designer has abused
CSS
to make the seventh item appear in third place. I seem to recall a
blind
friend of mine bitching and whining (with excellent
reason) about some similar usability nightmare in the past...
something to do with being asked if he meant the one on the right or
the
left of the third row. It was impossible for him to determine what
came from
which row, or on what side it appeared, because the person on the
phone saw
the page with some too-clever-by-half CSS applied, and he just had
SuperNova.
FWIW, that's a good reason not to hide the numbers on an ordered list
just
to make things look nice.
(And if anybody was wondering, blind people do have preferences in the
colours they wear.)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
