I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand,
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.
However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser
with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a
document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea.
I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users,
but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or
statistically evaluation.
You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently
working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help
eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you
probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll
let you know how it turns out.
Likely, James A. wrote:
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?
>From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.
How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
similar to the example that I found?
Thanks again for the help.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
fails completely.
Likely, James A. wrote:
Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now
on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
this example.
http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
What are your thoughts on this approach?
To me it looks pretty user friendly.
Please let me know as this is new to me.
Thanks
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as
it was meant.
If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
using screenreaders.
If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't
support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back
of regular forms.
Hope that helps.
- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hello,
I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.
I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.
The reason I ask is
1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.
2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?
You can see an example of both ways at:
Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_
Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?
Thanks for the help.
James
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
<http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm>
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
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]
*******************************************************************
--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ <http://www.arwebdesign.net>
Phone: 859.816.7955
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
