subject:"RE\: Section 508"

Jochem: I think the website is to blame for both parts. All sites
should be cross-browser compliant. All I was saying is from a 508
standpoint it is a poor example, the fundamental objective of 508 is
to provide the same access to information, regardless of disability...
and regardless of thier browser choice. I know you don't want to hear
it, but the vast majority of users use IE, so common sense says code
to IE first, whether its standard compliant or not, then worry about
the other 5%.

Isaac. width: 1500 is a fixed size. trying using ems and changing the
text size in the browser. Rachel (my css purist fiance) gave me a
lecture on it, growing a checkbox to the entire size of the browser.
The same code in mozilla just enlarged the box model around the
checkbox but the checkbox remained small.

-Adam

On 6/20/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Interesting. Unfortunately Mozilla is lacking in other
> > areas for 508
> > that I've tested. Like the inability to enlarge radio
> > buttons and
> > checkboxes. It will enlarge the text on a form, but leave
> > checkboxes
> > and radio buttons tiny, only enlarging the box around
> > them.
> 
> Afaik MSIE doesn't change the size of checkboxes and radio buttons
> either...  ... the
> "checkbox" will be wider than your browser, but the graphical portion
> of it will still be 15 px wide. I expect most browsers behave
> similarly, although I haven't tested that specifically.
> 
> 
> s. isaac dealey   954.522.6080
> new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
> 
> add features without fixtures with
> the onTap open source framework
> 
> http://www.fusiontap.com
> http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble 
Ticket application

http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210018
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread S . Isaac Dealey

> Interesting. Unfortunately Mozilla is lacking in other
> areas for 508
> that I've tested. Like the inability to enlarge radio
> buttons and
> checkboxes. It will enlarge the text on a form, but leave
> checkboxes
> and radio buttons tiny, only enlarging the box around
> them.

Afaik MSIE doesn't change the size of checkboxes and radio buttons
either...  ... the
"checkbox" will be wider than your browser, but the graphical portion
of it will still be 15 px wide. I expect most browsers behave
similarly, although I haven't tested that specifically.


s. isaac dealey   954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?

add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework

http://www.fusiontap.com
http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm




~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking 
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a 
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210016
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread Jochem van Dieten

Adrocknaphobia wrote:
>> From: Adrocknaphobia
>>>
>>> Kinda ironic, but it should be noted that section508.gov isn't a very
>>> good example of 508 compliancy itself. The biggest glaring mistake is
>>> using an external mechanism outside the browser to adjust the text
>>> size.

> Interesting. Unfortunately Mozilla is lacking in other areas for 508
> that I've tested.

So when Mozilla can't resize a tiny part of the page, it is 
lacking, but when IE can't resize anything on the page, the 
website is to blame?

The User Agent Accesibility Guidelines specifically say that a 
user agent should give final control over the rendering 
(including font size) to the user. So when we have 
section508.gov, Mozilla and IE, which one has the big glaring 
mistake?

Jochem

~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support 
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210015
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

Interesting. Unfortunately Mozilla is lacking in other areas for 508
that I've tested. Like the inability to enlarge radio buttons and
checkboxes. It will enlarge the text on a form, but leave checkboxes
and radio buttons tiny, only enlarging the box around them.

-Adam

On 6/20/05, Dave Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ctrl-mousewheel works in FF   :P
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 2:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Section 508 Compliance
> 
> 
> Kinda ironic, but it should be noted that section508.gov isn't a very
> good example of 508 compliancy itself. The biggest glaring mistake is
> using an external mechanism outside the browser to adjust the text
> size. If someone has poor vision, they aren't going to try and located
> the mechanism on the page to enlarge the text. (If they can even find
> it)
> 
> -Adam
> 
> On 6/20/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.section508.gov/
> >
> > On 6/20/05, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> > > I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone
> point me
> > > in the right direction for this?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Russ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking 
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a 
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210012
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

RE: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread Dave Francis

Ctrl-mousewheel works in FF   :P

-Original Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508 Compliance

Kinda ironic, but it should be noted that section508.gov isn't a very
good example of 508 compliancy itself. The biggest glaring mistake is
using an external mechanism outside the browser to adjust the text
size. If someone has poor vision, they aren't going to try and located
the mechanism on the page to enlarge the text. (If they can even find
it)

-Adam

On 6/20/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.section508.gov/
>
> On 6/20/05, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> > I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone
point me
> > in the right direction for this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking 
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a 
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210009
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

The 508 check within Dreamweaver is quite good, and will cover most
corporate needs.

-Adam

On 6/20/05, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ wrote:
> > A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> > I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone point me
> > in the right direction for this?
> 
>  and for information on using Macromedia tools to better support
> those regulations, as well as links to varied resources, try:
> http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/
> 
> jd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> John Dowdell . Macromedia Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
> Weblog: http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd
> Aggregator: http://www.macromedia.com/go/weblogs
> Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
> Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.
> 
> 

~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble 
Ticket application

http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210008
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread John Dowdell

Russ wrote:
> A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone point me
> in the right direction for this?

 and for information on using Macromedia tools to better support 
those regulations, as well as links to varied resources, try:
http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/

jd




-- 
John Dowdell . Macromedia Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
Weblog: http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd
Aggregator: http://www.macromedia.com/go/weblogs
Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking 
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a 
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210007
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

Kinda ironic, but it should be noted that section508.gov isn't a very
good example of 508 compliancy itself. The biggest glaring mistake is
using an external mechanism outside the browser to adjust the text
size. If someone has poor vision, they aren't going to try and located
the mechanism on the page to enlarge the text. (If they can even find
it)

-Adam

On 6/20/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.section508.gov/
> 
> On 6/20/05, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> > I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone point me
> > in the right direction for this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support 
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210006
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread Michael Wolfe

>http://www.section508.gov/
>
>On 6/20/05, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>

Also, since the Bobby compliance checker is no longer free, take a look at the 
CSE HTML Validator (http://www.htmlvalidator.com). It does a nice job of 
checking your generated HTML for 508 compliance.

--
Michael Wolfe

~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking 
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a 
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210002
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Re: Section 508 Compliance

2005-06-20 Thread Deanna Schneider

http://www.section508.gov/

On 6/20/05, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A client is asking us about having their website coded for the disabled.
> I'm assuming he's talking about Section 508 compliance.  Can anyone point me
> in the right direction for this?
> 
> 
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> 

~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble 
Ticket application

http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:20
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

RE: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Jim Davis

I think you may be mixing posts a bit (or I am).

 
I didn't think that the later comments stemmed from that post but rather
from Sandy's post indicating that that the section quoted really indicated
DHTML use - I don't think it needs to be taken that far since you can make a
page using only CSS that's unreadable without the sheet.

 
Either way I still think at the end there we had at least three people
fervently arguing very much the same thing.  In short that using CSS does
not automatically mean better usability.

 
Of course if I mixed up the thread, then I'm sorry. it wouldn't be the first
time.  ;^)

 
Jim Davis

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Section 508

 
Jim Davis said:
> I think you're missing the point a little, Jochem (it's not often
> that you do tho', so we'll give you credit.  ;^)  )  In fact I think
> we're arguing the same thing.
>
> We're not arguing against the tools (CSS).

The original comment reads:
"(d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without
requiring an associated style sheet.

Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes!
This item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards."

Maybe I missed something in English class, but how can I interpret
this as anything but arguing against the tools (stylesheets and
accesibility standards)?

Jochem
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Jim Davis said:
> I think you're missing the point a little, Jochem (it's not often
> that you do tho', so we'll give you credit.  ;^)  )  In fact I think
> we're arguing the same thing.
>
> We're not arguing against the tools (CSS).

The original comment reads:
"(d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without
requiring an associated style sheet.

Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes!
This item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards."

Maybe I missed something in English class, but how can I interpret
this as anything but arguing against the tools (stylesheets and
accesibility standards)?

Jochem
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Jim Davis

I think you're missing the point a little, Jochem (it's not often that you
do tho', so we'll give you credit.  ;^)  )  In fact I think we're arguing
the same thing.

We're not arguing against the tools (CSS).  CSS provides all the tools and
flexibility needed to do both a pretty site and an accessible site with the
same page/content.  It's NOT the tool.

It IS the developer (as you say).  All I'm arguing is that you don't have to
bring DHTML into the mix to have a page with is illegible (let's say
"fundamentally illegible" perhaps) without the associated style sheet.

You can go wild with only CSS (no _javascript_, DHTML, etc) and easily make a
page that's useless without the sheet (or, at the very least next to
useless).

This is DEFINITELY a developer, not a tool, issue - I was reading Jeremy's
comments as stemming from that.

You seem to be under the impression that he's arguing that it "can't be done
write" when I think he's arguing that "it's often done wrong".

Jim Davis

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> I'll explain by example.
> 
> For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs. (This
page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
stories and their descriptions!

That is why there are shortcuts at the top of the pages to bypass 
all that and jump directly to the content.

But apart from that, what makes you belief that the layout that 
particular site has without stylesheets is somehow mandated? It 
is the choice of the developer to have it look that way when no 
stylesheet loads, he could have chosen to make it look differently.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Dave Watts

> > > > It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning 
> > > > often aren't readable without the style sheet.
> > > 
> > > But is that because it is impossible to use both CSS 
> > > positioning and make them readable without the style sheet, 
> > > or because the developer has a priorities issue? If you 
> > > believe it is because it is impossible, could you provide 
> > > examples?
> > 
> > I'm just talking about how things often are; I'm not saying 
> > they have to be that way.
> 
> So lets blame the developer, instead of the tool.

I wasn't blaming anyone, just making an observation.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Kevin Graeme

You're preaching to the already converted. :-)

I was just asking about an implementation detail.

-Kevin

- Original Message - 
From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> I use both.
>
> People might want to get to my navigation instead of my content.  I tend
to
> put both a skip to main and a skip to navigation at the top.  I haven't
done
> this on either my home page or blog at the moment. I'm coming up with a
new
> design for them (when I get a chance) and I will have those in place at
that
> time.
>
> Also keep in mind that these items are not just useful for screen readers.
> Joe Clark makes the excellent point that the skips should actually be part
> of your visual design.  People accessing your site without a mouse benefit
> from the skip links (think motor disabilities). So do people who are
> accessing your site using either a PDA or a mobile phone who would
otherwise
> need to scroll down a lot for your information.
>
> Designing with Web standards (ie 's and positioning with CSS) allows
> your site to be read by more than just people accessing the web with IE or
> Mozilla.  Its an important fact to keep in mind.
>
> Although many people think of 508 and accessibility as making pages
> available for the blind, there are other disabilities that need our
> attention as well.
>
>   _____
>
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:17 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Section 508
>
>
> Excellent points.
>
> What's your take on a skipnav link vs placing the navigation in a div
lower
> in the code and using positioning to place it at the top for display?
>
> For people considering doing a skipnav, we use an include that we call at
> the top of every page that determines the current document web path and
> inserts a 1x1 clear gif that is a link to a "#startcontent" anchor that is
> placed just before the page content (actually at the end of the header
> include we use).
>
> -Kevin
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:43 AM
> Subject: RE: Section 508
>
> > Actually that is not true,  Wired hides some content via styles that
only
> > comes out when you are not using styles.
> >
> > // Pulled from Wired's site with styles turned off.
> >
> >
> > Note: You are reading this message either because you can not see our
css
> > files (served from Akamai for performance reasons), or because you do
not
> > have a standards-compliant browser. Read our design notes
> >   for details.
> >
> > Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box
> >  , Section Navigation
> >  , Content  .
> >
> > This is extremely usable and accessible.  A user who is not using
> > stylesheets (ie screen reader, mobile phone or other device) could go
> > directly to the important stuff, skipping the ads.
> >
> > Section 508 paragraph (o) A method shall be provided that permits users
to
> > skip repetitive navigation links.
> >
> > Wired goes one better and allows the user to skip to the content that is
> > important to them.
> >
> >   _
> >
> > From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:23 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re:Section 508
> >
> >
> > Jochem,
> >
> > I'll explain by example.
> >
> > For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up
and
> > positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs.
> (This
> > page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to
the
> > W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would
show
> > numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
> > information before going to the most important content to the reader-- 
the
> > stories and their descriptions!
> >
> > While the page still functions and does not break (don't get me wrong,
> > that's important too!) the user has a long way before having the
> opportunity
> > to even read the important stories of the day. For people with low
vision
> > (who this requirement was designed for) it becomes difficult to navigate
> the
> > site (ie less useable).
> >
> > Jeremy Brodie
> > Edgewater Technology
> >
> > web: http://www.edgewater.com
> > phone:(703) 815-2500
> > nasdaq symbol: EDGE
> >
> > >
> > > Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull
> > > the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and
> > > fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and
> > > clearness is lost?
> > >
> > > Jochem
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > I don't get it
> > > immigrants don't work
> > > and steal our jobs
> >
> > > - Loesje
> >   _
> >
> >
> >
>   _
>
>
>
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

I use both.

 
People might want to get to my navigation instead of my content.  I tend to
put both a skip to main and a skip to navigation at the top.  I haven't done
this on either my home page or blog at the moment. I'm coming up with a new
design for them (when I get a chance) and I will have those in place at that
time.

 
Also keep in mind that these items are not just useful for screen readers.
Joe Clark makes the excellent point that the skips should actually be part
of your visual design.  People accessing your site without a mouse benefit
from the skip links (think motor disabilities). So do people who are
accessing your site using either a PDA or a mobile phone who would otherwise
need to scroll down a lot for your information.

 
Designing with Web standards (ie 's and positioning with CSS) allows
your site to be read by more than just people accessing the web with IE or
Mozilla.  Its an important fact to keep in mind.

 
Although many people think of 508 and accessibility as making pages
available for the blind, there are other disabilities that need our
attention as well.

  _  

From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Excellent points.

What's your take on a skipnav link vs placing the navigation in a div lower
in the code and using positioning to place it at the top for display?

For people considering doing a skipnav, we use an include that we call at
the top of every page that determines the current document web path and
inserts a 1x1 clear gif that is a link to a "#startcontent" anchor that is
placed just before the page content (actually at the end of the header
include we use).

-Kevin

- Original Message - 
From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> Actually that is not true,  Wired hides some content via styles that only
> comes out when you are not using styles.
>
> // Pulled from Wired's site with styles turned off.
>
>
> Note: You are reading this message either because you can not see our css
> files (served from Akamai for performance reasons), or because you do not
> have a standards-compliant browser. Read our design notes
>   for details.
>
> Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box
>  , Section Navigation
>  , Content  .
>
> This is extremely usable and accessible.  A user who is not using
> stylesheets (ie screen reader, mobile phone or other device) could go
> directly to the important stuff, skipping the ads.
>
> Section 508 paragraph (o) A method shall be provided that permits users to
> skip repetitive navigation links.
>
> Wired goes one better and allows the user to skip to the content that is
> important to them.
>
>   _
>
> From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:23 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re:Section 508
>
>
> Jochem,
>
> I'll explain by example.
>
> For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
> positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs.
(This
> page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
> W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
> numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
> information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
> stories and their descriptions!
>
> While the page still functions and does not break (don't get me wrong,
> that's important too!) the user has a long way before having the
opportunity
> to even read the important stories of the day. For people with low vision
> (who this requirement was designed for) it becomes difficult to navigate
the
> site (ie less useable).
>
> Jeremy Brodie
> Edgewater Technology
>
> web: http://www.edgewater.com
> phone:(703) 815-2500
> nasdaq symbol: EDGE
>
> >
> > Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull
> > the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and
> > fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and
> > clearness is lost?
> >
> > Jochem
> >
> > -- 
> > I don't get it
> > immigrants don't work
> > and steal our jobs
>
> > - Loesje
>   _
>
>
> 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Kevin Graeme

Excellent points.

What's your take on a skipnav link vs placing the navigation in a div lower
in the code and using positioning to place it at the top for display?

For people considering doing a skipnav, we use an include that we call at
the top of every page that determines the current document web path and
inserts a 1x1 clear gif that is a link to a "#startcontent" anchor that is
placed just before the page content (actually at the end of the header
include we use).

-Kevin

- Original Message - 
From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> Actually that is not true,  Wired hides some content via styles that only
> comes out when you are not using styles.
>
> // Pulled from Wired's site with styles turned off.
>
>
> Note: You are reading this message either because you can not see our css
> files (served from Akamai for performance reasons), or because you do not
> have a standards-compliant browser. Read our design notes
>   for details.
>
> Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box
>  , Section Navigation
>  , Content  .
>
> This is extremely usable and accessible.  A user who is not using
> stylesheets (ie screen reader, mobile phone or other device) could go
> directly to the important stuff, skipping the ads.
>
> Section 508 paragraph (o) A method shall be provided that permits users to
> skip repetitive navigation links.
>
> Wired goes one better and allows the user to skip to the content that is
> important to them.
>
>   _
>
> From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:23 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re:Section 508
>
>
> Jochem,
>
> I'll explain by example.
>
> For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
> positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs.
(This
> page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
> W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
> numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
> information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
> stories and their descriptions!
>
> While the page still functions and does not break (don't get me wrong,
> that's important too!) the user has a long way before having the
opportunity
> to even read the important stories of the day. For people with low vision
> (who this requirement was designed for) it becomes difficult to navigate
the
> site (ie less useable).
>
> Jeremy Brodie
> Edgewater Technology
>
> web: http://www.edgewater.com
> phone:(703) 815-2500
> nasdaq symbol: EDGE
>
> >
> > Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull
> > the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and
> > fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and
> > clearness is lost?
> >
> > Jochem
> >
> > -- 
> > I don't get it
> > immigrants don't work
> > and steal our jobs
>
> > - Loesje
>   _
>
>
>
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Actually a better example of what you are trying to say is ESPN's site.
They don't offer skip links, their top navigation is still graphical.
However this is a development or management issue.  If you compare the
differences between wired and espn, you can see the difference easily.

 
Part of the difference here is that ESPN is owned by Disney and is part of
Microsoft's MSN. This means that Microsoft's ugly unsupported info comes up
first.  Once you get past that, it is more accessible. But again, these were
design decisions and not the result of how styles work.
  _  

From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:23 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:Section 508

Jochem,

I'll explain by example.

For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs. (This
page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
stories and their descriptions!

While the page still functions and does not break (don't get me wrong,
that's important too!) the user has a long way before having the opportunity
to even read the important stories of the day. For people with low vision
(who this requirement was designed for) it becomes difficult to navigate the
site (ie less useable). 

Jeremy Brodie
Edgewater Technology

web: http://www.edgewater.com
phone:(703) 815-2500
nasdaq symbol: EDGE

> 
> Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull 
> the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and 
> fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and 
> clearness is lost?
> 
> Jochem
> 
> -- 
> I don't get it
> immigrants don't work
> and steal our jobs
 
> - Loesje 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Actually with style sheets unloaded, I don't see much advertising at all.  I
think wired is very usable without stylesheets loaded.  I see one ad, but
that is after the skip links

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> I'll explain by example.
> 
> For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs. (This
page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
stories and their descriptions!

That is why there are shortcuts at the top of the pages to bypass 
all that and jump directly to the content.

But apart from that, what makes you belief that the layout that 
particular site has without stylesheets is somehow mandated? It 
is the choice of the developer to have it look that way when no 
stylesheet loads, he could have chosen to make it look differently.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Actually that is not true,  Wired hides some content via styles that only
comes out when you are not using styles.

 
// Pulled from Wired's site with styles turned off.
  

Note: You are reading this message either because you can not see our css
files (served from Akamai for performance reasons), or because you do not
have a standards-compliant browser. Read our design notes
  for details. 

Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box
 , Section Navigation
 , Content  .

 
This is extremely usable and accessible.  A user who is not using
stylesheets (ie screen reader, mobile phone or other device) could go
directly to the important stuff, skipping the ads.

 
Section 508 paragraph (o) A method shall be provided that permits users to
skip repetitive navigation links.

 
Wired goes one better and allows the user to skip to the content that is
important to them.

  _  

From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:23 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:Section 508

Jochem,

I'll explain by example.

For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and
positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs. (This
page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the
W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show
numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and
information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the
stories and their descriptions!

While the page still functions and does not break (don't get me wrong,
that's important too!) the user has a long way before having the opportunity
to even read the important stories of the day. For people with low vision
(who this requirement was designed for) it becomes difficult to navigate the
site (ie less useable). 

Jeremy Brodie
Edgewater Technology

web: http://www.edgewater.com
phone:(703) 815-2500
nasdaq symbol: EDGE

> 
> Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull 
> the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and 
> fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and 
> clearness is lost?
> 
> Jochem
> 
> -- 
> I don't get it
> immigrants don't work
> and steal our jobs
 
> - Loesje 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> I'll explain by example.
> 
> For example the wired.com front page only uses stylesheets for mark-up and positioning, using just DIV, P, SPAN and Header tags attached to IDs. (This page uses best practices from accessablity point of view according to the W3). If one were to pull the stylesheet entirely then the page would show numerous links, ads, promotions, Terra Lycos branding, market quotes and information before going to the most important content to the reader-- the stories and their descriptions!

That is why there are shortcuts at the top of the pages to bypass 
all that and jump directly to the content.

But apart from that, what makes you belief that the layout that 
particular site has without stylesheets is somehow mandated? It 
is the choice of the developer to have it look that way when no 
stylesheet loads, he could have chosen to make it look differently.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Ian Skinner

Same point I was about to make, if the page looses it's usability, then it wasn't designed to be usable without a style sheet.  The trick is to first design a basic page, then add the style sheet to make it look pretty.

-- 
Ian Skinner 
Web Programmer 
BloodSource 
www.BloodSource.org 
Sacramento, CA 

-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> b) Design using styles without tables. One of the latest trends (especally if one reads Zeldman) is using CSS without tables. From a W3 acessablity point of view, this would be the proper way of creating accessability web sites. The DIV, P, and Hx tags would be overridden by the user defined stylesheet, while the custom styles would take care of any positioning issues (provided the developer uses emS instead of Pixels). Pull the stylesheet away and the page looses its useability and not very clear.

Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull 
the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and 
fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and 
clearness is lost?

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> b) Design using styles without tables. One of the latest trends (especally if one reads Zeldman) is using CSS without tables. From a W3 acessablity point of view, this would be the proper way of creating accessability web sites. The DIV, P, and Hx tags would be overridden by the user defined stylesheet, while the custom styles would take care of any positioning issues (provided the developer uses emS instead of Pixels). Pull the stylesheet away and the page looses its useability and not very clear.

Why would a page loos its useability and clearness if you pull 
the stylesheet away? Sure, it looses colors, positioning and 
fonts, but does that _by_necessity_ mean that useability and 
clearness is lost?

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

Dave Watts wrote:
>>> It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often
>>> aren't readable without the style sheet.
>> 
>> But is that because it is impossible to use both CSS positioning and
>> make them readable without the style sheet, or because the developer
>> has a priorities issue? If you believe it is because it is impossible,
>> could you provide examples?
> 
> I'm just talking about how things often are; I'm not saying they have to be
> that way. Many pages I see that use CSS positioning aren't readable without
> the style sheet. I assume that they could have been written in a way so that
> they would be readable.

So lets blame the developer, instead of the tool.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Sure they can be.

 
They might not be pretty, but they are readable. 

Check out either my site, or my blog.  Grab the accessibility toolbars for
either Mozilla/Firebird or IE (there are posts on my blog pointing to them).
Turn off the stylesheets.  

 
Readable? Yes,

 
Pretty, heck no.

If you use HTML to provide structure for your content and not do any
presentation in them, ie making sure your headers indicate structure 's
nested in . and your presentation is entirely in your css, it works.  

 
For those pages which misused CSS for making content presentation (those
major overlapping words come to mind), that mixed content with presentation
and those aren't readable I agree.

  _  

From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Section 508

> A page can be styled in CSS using positioning, etc. and still be 
> completely readable when style sheets are turned off.

It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often aren't
readable without the style sheet.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-15 Thread Dave Watts

> > It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often
> > aren't readable without the style sheet.
> 
> But is that because it is impossible to use both CSS positioning and
> make them readable without the style sheet, or because the developer
> has a priorities issue? If you believe it is because it is impossible,
> could you provide examples?

I'm just talking about how things often are; I'm not saying they have to be
that way. Many pages I see that use CSS positioning aren't readable without
the style sheet. I assume that they could have been written in a way so that
they would be readable.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Dave Watts said:
>
> It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often
> aren't readable without the style sheet.

But is that because it is impossible to use both CSS positioning and
make them readable without the style sheet, or because the developer
has a priorities issue? If you believe it is because it is impossible,
could you provide examples?

Jochem
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Jim Davis

Actually that's what I meant. should have read "unreadable" - which is,
itself, an awful say to say it.

 
Jeeze I'm tired.  ;^)

 
Jim Davis

 
  _  

From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Section 508

 
> A page can be styled in CSS using positioning, etc. and still be 
> completely readable when style sheets are turned off.

It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often aren't
readable without the style sheet.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Larry C. Lyons

Haggerty, Mike wrote:

> There are a number of new developers where I work who have no clue as to
> what Section 508 is or what they need to be compliant. I have been
> spending time with each one individually, giving them examples,
> providing links, etc. but the message does not seem to be getting
> through.
> 
> There was a link on this list about 2 years ago to a site that broke 508
> down article by article, specifically in relation to the impact on Web
> developers. I've been through the archives but cannot seem to find it.
> Does anyone remember it and still have the link? Otherwise, does anyone
> have any good resources for learning 508?
> 
> M
> 
>
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Dave Watts

> A page can be styled in CSS using positioning, etc. and still be 
> completely readable when style sheets are turned off.

It's worth noting that pages that depend on CSS positioning often aren't
readable without the style sheet.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Jim Davis

I'm not sure you have to read that far into it.  You can make a document
unreadable with a style sheet using only CSS and no script or DHTML.

I remember, for example, sites (especially right after CSS "hit it") that
used style sheets to position content for text effects.  They might take
three copies of the same content and then position them to create a
highlight and drop shadow effects.  However when seen without the style
sheet you ended up with a mish-mash of duplicated headers and lines and
initial characters.

I've also see silly layouts with vertical or otherwise extremely positioned
text that were just illegible without the associated sheet.  These are
"worse" in a sense because they are actually doable in an accessible manner
but more care was taken on the pretty layout than one the content.

Jim Davis

  _  

From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Section 508

That paragraph actually means that you can't write content to a document via
something like _javascript_ and CSS (ie DHTML). 

for instance, if you were using DHTML to open a layer in which _javascript_
wrote something using document.write(), that is not allowed, because the
content of a page would not be the same as if CSS (and _javascript_) were
turned on.

A page must contain the same information with or without the use of CSS.  It
doesn't have to look the same.  A page can be styled in CSS using
positioning, etc. and still be completely readable when style sheets are
turned off.

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet. 
> 
> Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes! This
item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards.

Why would it take design a step backwards instead of forward? All 
it requires is that you make sure your site is readable without 
stylesheets.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje 
  _
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Sandy Clark

That paragraph actually means that you can't write content to a document via
something like _javascript_ and CSS (ie DHTML). 

for instance, if you were using DHTML to open a layer in which _javascript_
wrote something using document.write(), that is not allowed, because the
content of a page would not be the same as if CSS (and _javascript_) were
turned on.

A page must contain the same information with or without the use of CSS.  It
doesn't have to look the same.  A page can be styled in CSS using
positioning, etc. and still be completely readable when style sheets are
turned off.

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet. 
> 
> Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes! This
item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards.

Why would it take design a step backwards instead of forward? All 
it requires is that you make sure your site is readable without 
stylesheets.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Jim Davis

I think the key word is "REQUIRE".

The simple fact of the matter is that many accessibly tools apply their own
style sheets (for example high contrast or large text) so that the style
sheet defined by the designer may be overridden by one of these.

If your design is unreadable without your style sheet then its unlikely to
be legible with an accessibility sheet either.

At least that's the way I took the recommendation.

Jim Davis

  _  

From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet. 
> 
> Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes! This
item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards.

Why would it take design a step backwards instead of forward? All 
it requires is that you make sure your site is readable without 
stylesheets.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Jochem van Dieten

Jeremy Brodie wrote:
> 
> (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated style sheet. 
> 
> Comment: The W3 tells us to use stylesheets for asseability purposes! This item takes web design a step backwards instead of forwards.

Why would it take design a step backwards instead of forward? All 
it requires is that you make sure your site is readable without 
stylesheets.

Jochem

-- 
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
 - Loesje
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Kevin Graeme

Actually, I was wrong. The _web_ part of 508 doesn't require keyboard
navigation; however, the preceeding section of 508 that covers software
applications and operating systems does.

--
Subpart B -- Technical Standards

§ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems.

(a) When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard,
product functions shall be executable from a keyboard where the function
itself or the result of performing a function can be discerned textually.

--

My apologies for the confusion.

-Kevin



- Original Message - 
From: "G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Section 508

> It's interesting that someone mentioned "nothing in 508 requires support
for keyboard navigation".
>
> I was discussing 508 with a co-worker here who had been studying up on it
for some time, when he got tired of my questions, he basically told me "the
best way to ensure that you are 508 compliant, is to make sure that anything
and everything on your website can be done without a mouse (using only the
keyboard)".
>
> So now i'm a bit confused. Is mouseless navigation a key component for 508
compliance??
>
> Brian
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Paul Vernon
>   To: CF-Talk
>   Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:07 PM
>   Subject: RE: Section 508
>
>
>   > 2. Even though it may cause an accessibility problem, it's not
technically
>   > broken by 508 guidelines. Nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard
>   > navigation.
>
>
>   Wow, that is poor! My step-mother has Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) and was
>   diagnosed with it when she was 11 or 12. She lost her sight totally
about 10
>   years ago. About a year ago, we bought a DELL laptop that I configured
with
>   screen reader software and I also sat there for two hours sticking on
>   transparent braile stickers over the keys so it was more friendly for
her to
>   use. She uses the keyboard for everything. The mouse is a waste of time
for
>   her, it is there only for other people to use when they need to work on
her
>   PC.
>
>
>   The fact that there is no mandatory requirement in Section 508 for
keyboard
>   navigation seems somewhat flawed for legislature that is designed for
>   accessibility purposes does it not?
>
>
>   And yes, they need to work on their CF code a bit. :)
>
>
>   Paul
>
>
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Sandy Clark

508 doesn't cover functional limitations but the Web Accessibility
Initiative by the W3C does.

 
IMHO WAI's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1 and 2 priorities make web
sites much more accesssible than 508.

  _  

From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Section 508


The irony is strong in this one.


Two things to note:

1. It's caused by the unnecessary "overflow: auto" on the body in their CSS.
2. Even though it may cause an accessibility problem, it's not technically
broken by 508 guidelines. Nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard
navigation.

-Kevin

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> Being from the UK, I had no idea what Section 508 stood for so a quick
> google took me to the Section508.gov site so now I know
>
> Now I like to scoll down pages using the keyboard either with the up/down
> arrows or the page up/down keys Is it just me or do they not work on
> this site Mouse based scrolling works a treat!
>
> I've verified this to be the case on two separate installations of IE and
> also checked the same instances of IE on other web-sites... Keyboard
> navigation is working fine. This does not bode well for an
accessibility
> focused web-site!!! Incidentally, tabbing through links on the site works
> fine...
>
> The summary breakdown of the standards can be found here
>
> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content
>  &ID=11
>
> Hope you have a wheel mouse!
>
> Further links can be found here
>
> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content
>  &ID=131
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Sandy Clark

For accessibility in general, go to
http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.ht
ml

 
My blog also covers accessibility and I am currently starting on writing
articles which takes on each item in 508 and the WCAG and breaks down how to
apply them.
(Only one article so far, but more are coming!)
http://www.shayna.com/blog

Also CFUN04 in DC will be having a 4 topic/ 1 day accessibility track (cause
I really bugged Michael), so you might want to send your developers there as
well.

  _  

From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Section 508

There are a number of new developers where I work who have no clue as to
what Section 508 is or what they need to be compliant. I have been
spending time with each one individually, giving them examples,
providing links, etc. but the message does not seem to be getting
through.

There was a link on this list about 2 years ago to a site that broke 508
down article by article, specifically in relation to the impact on Web
developers. I've been through the archives but cannot seem to find it.
Does anyone remember it and still have the link? Otherwise, does anyone
have any good resources for learning 508?

M 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Robert Redpath

Gov't site:   http://www.section508.gov/

Test a page:  
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

-Original Message-
From: Paul Vernon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Section 508

Seriously, I'm subscribed to quite a few lists and this is the first time
I've seen a reference to it using 'Section 508' rather than just being
referred to as something like 'the new accessibility laws'.

Paul 
  _
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread G

It's interesting that someone mentioned "nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard navigation".

I was discussing 508 with a co-worker here who had been studying up on it for some time, when he got tired of my questions, he basically told me "the best way to ensure that you are 508 compliant, is to make sure that anything and everything on your website can be done without a mouse (using only the keyboard)".

So now i'm a bit confused. Is mouseless navigation a key component for 508 compliance??

Brian
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vernon
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> 2. Even though it may cause an accessibility problem, it's not technically
> broken by 508 guidelines. Nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard
> navigation.

Wow, that is poor! My step-mother has Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) and was
diagnosed with it when she was 11 or 12. She lost her sight totally about 10
years ago. About a year ago, we bought a DELL laptop that I configured with
screen reader software and I also sat there for two hours sticking on
transparent braile stickers over the keys so it was more friendly for her to
use. She uses the keyboard for everything. The mouse is a waste of time for
her, it is there only for other people to use when they need to work on her
PC.

The fact that there is no mandatory requirement in Section 508 for keyboard
navigation seems somewhat flawed for legislature that is designed for
accessibility purposes does it not?

And yes, they need to work on their CF code a bit. :)

Paul
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Andy Ousterhout

This is really cool.  Thanks.
  -Original Message-
  From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:22 PM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: RE: Section 508

  > There are a number of new developers where I work who have no
  > clue as to what Section 508 is or what they need to be
  > compliant. I have been spending time with each one
  > individually, giving them examples, providing links, etc. but
  > the message does not seem to be getting through.
  >
  > There was a link on this list about 2 years ago to a site
  > that broke 508 down article by article, specifically in
  > relation to the impact on Web developers. I've been through
  > the archives but cannot seem to find it. Does anyone remember
  > it and still have the link? Otherwise, does anyone have any
  > good resources for learning 508?

  Bobby scans the pages:
  http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

Seriously, I'm subscribed to quite a few lists and this is the first time
I've seen a reference to it using 'Section 508' rather than just being
referred to as something like 'the new accessibility laws'.

 
Paul
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Philip Arnold

> > I'm originally from the UK and I knew what 508 was... And I knew
> > before I had to deal with a US based client
>
> Just for the record, not being aware of the actual name of
> the legislation doesn't mean you dont know it's there!!

But there's enough talk on the lists and the Internet about the 508
specification that the name should be common knowledge
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

> 2. Even though it may cause an accessibility problem, it's not technically
> broken by 508 guidelines. Nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard
> navigation.

 
Wow, that is poor! My step-mother has Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) and was
diagnosed with it when she was 11 or 12. She lost her sight totally about 10
years ago. About a year ago, we bought a DELL laptop that I configured with
screen reader software and I also sat there for two hours sticking on
transparent braile stickers over the keys so it was more friendly for her to
use. She uses the keyboard for everything. The mouse is a waste of time for
her, it is there only for other people to use when they need to work on her
PC.

 
The fact that there is no mandatory requirement in Section 508 for keyboard
navigation seems somewhat flawed for legislature that is designed for
accessibility purposes does it not?

 
And yes, they need to work on their CF code a bit. :)

 
Paul
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

Re: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Kevin Graeme


The irony is strong in this one.


Two things to note:

1. It's caused by the unnecessary "overflow: auto" on the body in their CSS.
2. Even though it may cause an accessibility problem, it's not technically
broken by 508 guidelines. Nothing in 508 requires support for keyboard
navigation.

-Kevin

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Section 508

> Being from the UK, I had no idea what Section 508 stood for so a quick
> google took me to the Section508.gov site so now I know
>
> Now I like to scoll down pages using the keyboard either with the up/down
> arrows or the page up/down keys Is it just me or do they not work on
> this site Mouse based scrolling works a treat!
>
> I've verified this to be the case on two separate installations of IE and
> also checked the same instances of IE on other web-sites... Keyboard
> navigation is working fine. This does not bode well for an
accessibility
> focused web-site!!! Incidentally, tabbing through links on the site works
> fine...
>
> The summary breakdown of the standards can be found here
>
> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content
>  &ID=11
>
> Hope you have a wheel mouse!
>
> Further links can be found here
>
> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content
>  &ID=131
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

> I'm originally from the UK and I knew what 508 was... And I knew before
> I had to deal with a US based client

Just for the record, not being aware of the actual name of the legislation
doesn't mean you dont know it's there!!

 
Paul
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508

2004-01-14 Thread Philip Arnold

> Being from the UK, I had no idea what Section 508 stood for
> so a quick google took me to the Section508.gov site so now I know

I'm originally from the UK and I knew what 508 was... And I knew before
I had to deal with a US based client

> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content
> 
> &ID=11

I love their lack of error catching - especially for a Government based
site :P
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]

RE: Section 508