[WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Says the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Designing a more accessible web please send comments to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6041492.stm#Email BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Send us your comments ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
I will take the first sentence and turn to the article writer: What does web accessibility mean to you? Probably not a lot. - Original Message - From: Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS? Says the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Designing a more accessible web please send comments to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6041492.stm#Email BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Send us your comments ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.428 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 27/10/2006 15.15 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Tony Crockford wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm blockquote Harry Potter author JK Rowling recently launched the first site to use a new form of Flash, which is often used to add interactivity and animation to a website. Two years ago, Adobe updated this technology so designers using Flash could build in accessibility features. Leonie Watson says: Flash is a very interesting topic in terms of web accessibility. It's actually capable of being very accessible indeed. It has means for building in captioning for people who are hearing impaired; it allows soundtracks to be imported very easily so that audio description can be provided for people with visual impairments; it has a lot of very easy ways to build in accessibility, providing the developer sets out to do that from the beginning. /blockquote I don't think there are any incorrect statements here. Flash *can* be accessible, if done right - is what I have heard. Please do correct me if I am wrong. The fact that many people *do not* take the time to make it accessible is a different matter. There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid out with style sheets. Do avoid quoting articles out of context. Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Tony Crockford wrote: Says the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Designing a more accessible web please send comments to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6041492.stm#Email BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Send us your comments ;o) Gday, I'm sorry but I can't see anywhere where there is a direct comparison, with the conclusion that Flash is more accessible than CSS. They do say that the more recent versions of Flash are more accessible than older, which AFAIK is true. There is also research going on to improve it's accessibility. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid out with style sheets. Do avoid quoting articles out of context. My subject was a question, because I felt that the article made it appear that using CSS was inappropriate and difficult to use for accessibility but Flash held the answers to accessibility issues. Website designer, Leonie Watson says: There's a technology called Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) that allows you to control the way a page is displayed, such as the colour of the text and background. However, that's quite a new technology, it's only been around a couple of years, and a lot of designers are still very wary of using it. They actually hard code the colours into the web page itself, which means that they can't be overridden by your browser, or OS. if you were a web designer and you read the article, would you be more inclined to use Flash or CSS? when I read more about Leonie Watson (head of accessibility at Nomensa) I find that she probably has a vested interest in promoting Flash as an accessibility tool. http://www.nomensa.com/web_design.html Web Design : Nomensa - Humanising Technology It's what they prefer to use to design sites. so the reporter of the article has, in my opinion, presented an unbalanced and one sided view of how to make accessible web sites. ;o) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
- Original Message - From: Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS? I don't think there are any incorrect statements here. Flash *can* be accessible, if done right - is what I have heard. Please do correct me if I am wrong. The fact that many people *do not* take the time to make it accessible is a different matter. Roberto Scano: *yes* but only in Windows OS and with the use of the embed element for a best support of MSAA. So, are more accessible flash contents or contents that are offered in plain html and/or using Web 2.0 technologies? And when is necessary to use flash instead of other more accessible technologies? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Tony Crockford wrote: Rahul Gonsalves wrote: There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid out with style sheets. Do avoid quoting articles out of context. My subject was a question, because I felt that the article made it appear that using CSS was inappropriate and difficult to use for accessibility but Flash held the answers to accessibility issues. My apologies then. I missed the question mark, and the tone of your email :-(. Website designer, Leonie Watson says: There's a technology called Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) that allows you to control the way a page is displayed, such as the colour of the text and background. However, that's quite a new technology, it's only been around a couple of years, and a lot of designers are still very wary of using it. They actually hard code the colours into the web page itself, which means that they can't be overridden by your browser, or OS. Umm - the way I read this is that CSS aids accessibility, but that people are scared of using it (TRUE), and hand-code in colours/fonts/positioning (TRUE) using tables/inline styles/what have you. if you were a web designer and you read the article, would you be more inclined to use Flash or CSS? Well, hopefully I'd already be using CSS. Even if I wasn't, I'd sure like to hear about this new technology that aids accessibility, whether it was CSS or Flash. If I did enough further reading, then I'm sure I'd find out and logically move towards CSS :-). when I read more about Leonie Watson (head of accessibility at Nomensa) I find that she probably has a vested interest in promoting Flash as an accessibility tool. http://www.nomensa.com/web_design.html Web Design : Nomensa - Humanising Technology It's what they prefer to use to design sites. so the reporter of the article has, in my opinion, presented an unbalanced and one sided view of how to make accessible web sites. I couldn't find where they say that they prefer designing sites using Flash. Their website seems (the few pages I glanced through anyway) to be built on xHTML 1.0 strict, and where they talk about flash, they talk about accessibility considerations as well. If you look at the Nomensa home page, they promote accessibility *far* more than flash - I see several mentions of accessibility, accessibility audits, etc, and no use of Flash. Their accessibility page seems quite sensible [1]. Which would suggest to me that the reporter looked through their site, and found someone who was paying some attention to accessibility, and presented their point of view. Regards, - Rahul. [1] http://www.nomensa.com/accessibility.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Hi, I have just been reading through the various emails on this with interest as I was asked recently for a website with a flash header. I have always thought Flash was inaccessible. Could it be that this area is moving on? I checked on the link to Nomensa and found another link within their website: http://www.nomensa.com/resources/articles/accessibility-articles/flash-game.html which maybe of interest to everyone. Elaine http://www.webdandy.co.uk -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: 28 October 2006 09:56 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS? Rahul Gonsalves wrote: There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid out with style sheets. Do avoid quoting articles out of context. My subject was a question, because I felt that the article made it appear that using CSS was inappropriate and difficult to use for accessibility but Flash held the answers to accessibility issues. Website designer, Leonie Watson says: There's a technology called Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) that allows you to control the way a page is displayed, such as the colour of the text and background. However, that's quite a new technology, it's only been around a couple of years, and a lot of designers are still very wary of using it. They actually hard code the colours into the web page itself, which means that they can't be overridden by your browser, or OS. if you were a web designer and you read the article, would you be more inclined to use Flash or CSS? when I read more about Leonie Watson (head of accessibility at Nomensa) I find that she probably has a vested interest in promoting Flash as an accessibility tool. http://www.nomensa.com/web_design.html Web Design : Nomensa - Humanising Technology It's what they prefer to use to design sites. so the reporter of the article has, in my opinion, presented an unbalanced and one sided view of how to make accessible web sites. ;o) *** 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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Site check for Opera PC, IE 7, svp
Hi folks, My web designer/assistant and I are redesigning my web site and will be moving it to a new host at the same time, and have the new site at: http://208.112.30.82/ (the redesigned blog, which has a few more issues and has lain fallow for a few months is at: http:// langfeldesigns.com/blog/langfeldblog.html ). Would anyone be kind enough to take a look at it in Opera 8 or 9 PC, and IE 7. We've got Mac covered, and have a Windows machine with IE6 and Opera 7, but not the others. I saw the discussion about browsercam and joined a group purchase, but don't know how long it will take to achieve, and would like to launch on 1 November if possible. One issue we can't figure out is why the main navigation is offset from the left of its container. There's no padding or margins as well as we can tell that would create the offset. Here are the CSS file addresses: ftp://langfeld:@208.112.30.82/ htdocs/langfeld.css ftp://langfeld:@208.112.30.82/htdocs/langfeldIE.css We had lots of conditional comments, etc. to do, and are concerned that some of the fixes may be causing other problems. Thanks very much for any constructive criticism, comments and your help making the site better. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
The article appear based around one person, Leonie Watson opinions and they are very different to mine and probably most people on this list. Leonie Watson quote about CSSHowever, that's quite a new technology, it's only been around a couple of years, and a lot of designers are still very wary of using it.But wasn't CSS introduced in 1996 the same year as Future Splash aka Flash? (source wikipedia)Most designer I know are more wary of using Flash than CSS. I know because I have been campaigning to use flash for vector images and most designers are wary of using flash over a gif or jpeg even though the flash file is much smaller file and can be scaled. Two years ago, Adobe updated this technology so designers using Flash could build in accessibility features.I saw Bob Regan Macromedia and now Adobe accessability evangelist, give a demo four years and I was impressed then by how accessible Flash could be in the right hands. (He also gave a great demo on CSS and accessibility). Macromedia and Adobe have been working on Flash accessibility for many years now, not the last couple. It [Flash] has a lot of very easy ways to build in accessibility, providing the developer sets out to do that from the beginningAs with any website technology, flash or otherwise. The main problem is the lack of flash web designers who understand accessibility. I have yet to met a flash web designer who has a more than a basic understanding of accessibility and actually builds accessible flash websites. The best I have seen is a text only alternate version. Not that I have meet a lot of flash web designers. My opinion (and that what it is an opinion) is that flash website can be accesible when:1. the are built by a flash web designer who understands accessibility and how to achieve that with flash; and2. the audience are using a reasonably powerful windows computer with recent versions of the OS, IE, flash and other software required (ie the latest version of JAWS as a screen reader). -- Nick Cowiehttp://nickcowie.com ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
... I saw Bob Regan Macromedia and now Adobe accessability evangelist, give a demo four years and I was impressed then by how accessible Flash could be in the right hands. (He also gave a great demo on CSS and accessibility). Macromedia and Adobe have been working on Flash accessibility for many years now, not the last couple. ... And I saw Robin Christopherson at @media 2006 demonstrating, how even Macrodobia's tutorial on accessible flash wasn't that accessible at all :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
But wasn't CSS introduced in 1996 the same year as Future Splash aka Flash? (source wikipedia) 1994 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
But wasn't CSS introduced in 1996 the same year as Future Splash aka Flash? (source wikipedia) Well... Apologies for getting picky, but Hakon Wium Lie published the first draft of Cascading HTML Style Sheets on 10 October 1994. The draft is still online: http://www.w3.org/People/howcome/p/cascade.html You can read the full history here: http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/history/ Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] W3C's new Plan for HTML
Hi, Tim Berners-Lee announced the W3C's new plan for HTML and the Working Groups this morning [1]. From what I was told last night and read in the announcement this morning, the work on HTML will be officially split (though it has been unofficially for the past 2 years anyway). AIUI, the new HTML WG will effectively carry on with the WHATWG to develop (X)HTML 5 and the new XHTML2 WG will continue to develop XHTML 2.0. AFAICT, what this effectively means is that there will be 2 official, yet competing, HTML languages that are completely incompatible with each other. * (X)HTML 5: Designed from the outset to be an evolutionary step up from HTML4/XHTML1, with backwards compatibility in mind. * XHTML 2: Designed as a revolutionary, backwards incompatible, fresh start. Prior to this, I was hoping that the two camps would find a way to work together towards their common goals to produce one specification. However, it now appears that the camps will diverge even further. I've asked for confirmation about whether or not that's true, but it appears to be from the limited information I have. There will also be a new Forms WG focussing on XForms, and some task force to somehow bridge the gap between them and Web Forms 2.0 (extensions to HTML 4 forms). However, information is scarce and it's unclear how that will work and what I know about it is only speculation. I think it's too early to draw any major conclusions from this news, particularly with regards to how this will affect authors, but my first impressions are certainly not thrilling. IMHO, there is no room for competing standards and I assume one of them will inevitably die, with the winner determined by market forces. Anyway, does anyone else have any thoughts or speculation about this? [1] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166 -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Tony I think you have hit the nail on the head - there seems to be an agenda here that the reporter on the BBC site has failed to pick up on. Alex From: Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS? Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:56:11 +0100 Rahul Gonsalves wrote: There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid out with style sheets. Do avoid quoting articles out of context. My subject was a question, because I felt that the article made it appear that using CSS was inappropriate and difficult to use for accessibility but Flash held the answers to accessibility issues. Website designer, Leonie Watson says: There's a technology called Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) that allows you to control the way a page is displayed, such as the colour of the text and background. However, that's quite a new technology, it's only been around a couple of years, and a lot of designers are still very wary of using it. They actually hard code the colours into the web page itself, which means that they can't be overridden by your browser, or OS. if you were a web designer and you read the article, would you be more inclined to use Flash or CSS? when I read more about Leonie Watson (head of accessibility at Nomensa) I find that she probably has a vested interest in promoting Flash as an accessibility tool. http://www.nomensa.com/web_design.html Web Design : Nomensa - Humanising Technology It's what they prefer to use to design sites. so the reporter of the article has, in my opinion, presented an unbalanced and one sided view of how to make accessible web sites. ;o) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** _ Windows LiveĀ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
RussYou are being picky ;-)I choose the date that CSS 1 recommendations where published by the W3C as the offical introduction.The point was CSS has been around as long as Flash (if not longer 10 years or 12, it is still a long time, not a couple of years) On 28/10/06, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But wasn't CSS introduced in 1996 the same year as Future Splash aka Flash? (source wikipedia)Well... Apologies for getting picky, but Hakon Wium Lie published the firstdraft of Cascading HTML Style Sheets on 10 October 1994. The draft is still online:http://www.w3.org/People/howcome/p/cascade.htmlYou can read the full history here: http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/history/ThanksRuss***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***-- Nick Cowie http://nickcowie.com ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
On 10/28/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Says the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Designing a more accessible web please send comments to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6041492.stm#Email BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Send us your comments It's a really poor article altogether. The writer only interviewed *1* person, not an expert, and clearly someone with their own bias. The writer talked about *1* website, a completely unique example which took *a lot* of money and work to accomplish. The writer didn't do her research about CSS, and never mentioned section 508, valid HTML or any of the other HTML-based accessibility/well-formedness measures. The writer also mentioned *1* court case, and made it seem like only *1* person has a problem with Target. That's just not how you write articles. Throwing together all this barely related information results in an article that is just about useless to the reader. Roberto Scano wrote: I will take the first sentence and turn to the article writer: What does web accessibility mean to you? Probably not a lot. Exactly. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] MESSAGE NOT DELIVERED: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Your message could not be delivered. The User is out of space. Please try to send your message again at a later time. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] W3C's new Plan for HTML
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Hi, Tim Berners-Lee announced the W3C's new plan for HTML and the Working Groups this morning [1]. [...] Anyway, does anyone else have any thoughts or speculation about this? If it's grand re-think time, I'd like to see the Compound Document Formats work (CDF, http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/ etc ) sit a lot closer to the heart of the post-xhtml1 roadmap. W3C is good at creating technologies, but relatively poor at integrating them. The Open Document format work, which happens to live at OASIS rather than W3C, also has a lot of scope overlap here. It would be a shame if users suffered because some of this work is happening in one consortium, and some in another. I happen to have recently got involved in that work, after spending the last 9 years involved mostly in W3C efforts, and the disconnect between the two scenes is very disheartening. I hope W3C can show some leadership here by doing all the new HTML-related work in full public view, regardless of the impact that might have on its ability to recruit paying Members. Operating in public view has worked well for other W3C Working Groups in recent years, and since the rise of the Open Source movement, it really just doesn't make sense to design such things in private any more. It simply isn't fair to those browsers (and other apps) that are built by large, distributed, volunteer communities rather than by employees. Consortium-based standards processes (for a blend of reasons - financial, legal, practical, and cultural...) are employment-centric. If you work for a Member organisation, you can get on the inside track. If not, you're almost always left on the outside. This has left a lot of people - many 1000s - feeling out-of-the-loop w.r.t. HTML and other standards that they care passionately about, and have invested massively in implementing, evangelising, and deploying. However responsive and generous the W3C WGs are with their reporting, imho the only fair way to engage the opensource community is to allow *everyone* to see the detailed technical discussions of the groups. The engineering tradeoffs will get worked out in time, for better or worse. I'm more concerned about how these groups work, about visibility and accountability (WhatWG as well; there's more to accountability than having public mail archives, and WhatWG has much to learn from W3C). It's time we saw the detailed future of HTML designed in full public view again. There are thousands of people out here who will never represent W3C Members, ... never be W3C Invited Experts, ... but who have a huge amount to contribute and who deserve to see as much as the inner circles see, in terms of mailing list archives, meeting minutes etc. There's a massive amount of work to be done, and would-be contributors shouldn't have to beg to help. In that regard, the standards scene still has a lot to learn from opensource. imho etc., Dan -- http://danbri.org/ [1] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
I just sent this to the GAWDS list before even realizing this was the topic de jour here as well. (Forgive the cross post if that's what it is to you.) Here's my take on Flash: --- I love Flash. I think it's wildly entertaining and can offer limitless creative elements and some wow-moments interactivity. I also think it's perfectly fine to use it. But it has six serious drawbacks that I count: 1) Accessibility to all (requires Flash plugin). 2) can't highlight/copy text. 3) No back button functionality. 4) No specific content access (can't link to a certain page). 5) No text enlargement. 6) And poor SEO. Good news! All are easily solved by doing one thing: Create that ever-loving accessible alternative (13.1). Draw the content from a database or flat files to save work. Then -- also important -- lead the visitor to a pure HTML page upon arrival to the site and give the visitor a choice on how to enter -- the old splash page routine. Flash? or HTML? I suppose Flash plugin detection can be used much as the way noscript is used, but this might not solve the SEO part as well. Moreover, unless a (non meta) redirect is used, nobody wants to get the old You need to get this or get that notification. Respectfully, Mike Cherim *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Site check for Opera PC, IE 7, svp
Hello Marilyn, In IE7 there are a few issues: 1) The whole top header and section under it need to move to the left about 20px. 2) There is a ~150px horizontal scrollbar (I'm using 1024x768) 3) The icons down on the sidebar are overlapping some of the associated text down there. 4) Footer gradient not visible. Looks fine, though. Didn't realize there was supposed to be one until looking with Opera. In OP9 it has some stuff going on too: 1) The top header needs to move left maybe 4px. 2) There is a ~105px horizontal scrollbar (I'm using 1024x768) 3) Icons are fine. The exact problems noted in Opera 9 are also issues in Firefox 2 on Windows. Hope this helps. I don't have the time to really dig too deep or try to offer solutions at the moment. Respectfully, Mike Cherim - Original Message - From: Marilyn Langfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check for Opera PC, IE 7, svp Hi folks, My web designer/assistant and I are redesigning my web site and will be moving it to a new host at the same time, and have the new site at: http://208.112.30.82/ (the redesigned blog, which has a few more issues and has lain fallow for a few months is at: http:// langfeldesigns.com/blog/langfeldblog.html ). Would anyone be kind enough to take a look at it in Opera 8 or 9 PC, and IE 7. We've got Mac covered, and have a Windows machine with IE6 and Opera 7, but not the others. I saw the discussion about browsercam and joined a group purchase, but don't know how long it will take to achieve, and would like to launch on 1 November if possible. One issue we can't figure out is why the main navigation is offset from the left of its container. There's no padding or margins as well as we can tell that would create the offset. Here are the CSS file addresses: ftp://langfeld:@208.112.30.82/ htdocs/langfeld.css ftp://langfeld:@208.112.30.82/htdocs/langfeldIE.css We had lots of conditional comments, etc. to do, and are concerned that some of the fixes may be causing other problems. Thanks very much for any constructive criticism, comments and your help making the site better. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [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] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
It's a horrible wet Sunday so... Christian Montoya wrote: It's a really poor article altogether. Agreed The writer Katie Ledger is a *presenter* not a journalist of any depth or note AFAIK, so that explains the lack of research and understanding. only interviewed *1* person, not an expert, and clearly someone with their own bias. To be fair, Leonie Watson is blind herself [1] and seems at least as well qualified to comment on accessibility as most I've encountered. I don't know her personally (I live on the other side of the world) but I'm willing to accept her opinions as valid in her experience. I don't think you can dismiss her completely. The writer talked about *1* website, a completely unique example which took *a lot* of money and work to accomplish. That's a key problem with the article - it makes accessibility sound really hard and something you have to get experts in for. The writer didn't do her research about CSS, and never mentioned section 508, valid HTML or any of the other HTML-based accessibility/well-formedness measures. Writer != journo, as mentioned earlier. But you can't really knock a British writer for not mentioning an artificial American measure that only applies to American Government agencies. I agree about the lack of research though. The writer also mentioned *1* court case, and made it seem like only *1* person has a problem with Target. That's just not how you write articles. Throwing together all this barely related information results in an article that is just about useless to the reader. Click is a television program. Television is, by nature, superficial. My take on the piece (one of about 3 on the site) is that someone at the BBC said we really should do something about this accessibility thing. Who knows anyone? and from there the trail lead to Nomensa and Watson. Alex and Tony muttered about agendas and I do suspect that Nomensa has an agenda to do with Flash - it does appear to be the only technology mentioned on their site, and a quick search for CSS and Cascading Style Sheets turns up nothing. I suspect they put out a press release or something which someone handed to Ledger. I'm not sure what they expect to achieve with that agenda though... BTW They did a report [2] into accessibility of UK Central govt sites which is interesting, although Jan 2005 is an age away now. It's not downloadable from their website, but you can sneak it out of google ;-) [3]. [1] http://www.nomensa.com/about/key-people/leonie-watson.html [2] http://www.nomensa.com/resources/research/web-accessibility-in-central-government.html [3] http://www.iabf.or.kr/lib/common/download.asp?path=pdsfile=Nomensa_Central_Government_Report_Jan_2005.pdf Cheers mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Mark Harris wrote: My take on the piece (one of about 3 on the site) is that someone at the BBC said we really should do something about this accessibility thing. Who knows anyone? and from there the trail lead to Nomensa and Watson. Alex and Tony muttered about agendas and I do suspect that Nomensa has an agenda to do with Flash - it does appear to be the only technology mentioned on their site, and a quick search for CSS and Cascading Style Sheets turns up nothing. I suspect they put out a press release or something which someone handed to Ledger. Mark, may I nit-pick? One shouldn't really have to talk about CSS if one is designing web pages. Ideally, one would just use it. Their pages seem to be built using CSS rather than tables, so they seem to know how to use them, and I'm going to assume that they build their other projects in the same way, on xhtml strict, and css. Regards, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash is more accessible than CSS?
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: Mark, may I nit-pick? One shouldn't really have to talk about CSS if one is designing web pages. Ideally, one would just use it. Their pages seem to be built using CSS rather than tables, so they seem to know how to use them, and I'm going to assume that they build their other projects in the same way, on xhtml strict, and css. Very true, if all you are talking about is how we use the stuff. But how many of their customers will view their source code to find that out? I admit, I was expecting some Flash monstrosity when I clicked on the link and was presently surprised. However, we're all in the business - we know what to look for. Will their clients? (Certainly Katie Ledger didn't :-p ) cheers mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
