Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:22:44AM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: Ok, but what if... site has navigation built with Flash. As much as I know (read: think) screenreader can not read it, so it is not accessible... The Flash plugin has an API to allow screen readers to connect to it (and screen readers do). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
David Dorward wrote: Hello the alt attribute. In terms of my job as a CSS designer, 90% of my workload is all the stuff you're ignoring. That's not to say you're fundamentally wrong or useless in terms of my world-view, but the world of the graphic designer (especially as a semantics-obsessed information designer) is solar systems bigger than what you're suggesting. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:52:28AM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: So that makes a quit usefull combination... While screenreaders can read flash, search engines can not... and while search engines can read display:none, it make sense to put, besides flash navigation, also the standard compilant navigation so that search engines could index other pages... Better to hide the standard compilant navigation by using the standard HTML syntax for alternative content then to depend on CSS to hide it from users. That way users who just don't happen to have Flash installed still get something useful. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 12:13:20PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: alt atribute is usefull... but for eg. navigational purposes, text based link sould be provided to the user... It feels like discriminating when providing alternatives to one of user groups... The alt text should be equivalent. If the user/browser can handle images then they should get the same information as if they can not. So where is the discrimination? The only difference is that people who are in a position to benefit from the graphical version can do so. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:30:32AM +, Barney Carroll wrote: David Dorward wrote: Hello the alt attribute. In terms of my job as a CSS designer, 90% of my workload is all the stuff you're ignoring. I spent a few minutes trying to work out how to respond to this (and the material I snipped), but I'm having trouble working out what you are trying to say. What am I ignoring? What does being a graphic designer have to do with not using the mechanism built into HTML to provide graphical content with an accessible, text-based fallback, but instead using CSS to create a similar, but less accessible, effect? -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
What I wanted to say, is that for the navigational purposes, it should be used text rather than images with alt atribute that sould than be like alt=Image as a link that points to About company. Maybe I'm wrong, and there is nothing wrong with image based navigation that provides information about link itself thru alternative text. I am thinking like: Why sould there be an alternative? When talking about other image elements, like site graphics and picturse (eg. gallery, banners, ads), than alt text is more than welcome (necesary)... Mihael On 1/9/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 12:13:20PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: alt atribute is usefull... but for eg. navigational purposes, text based link sould be provided to the user... It feels like discriminating when providing alternatives to one of user groups... The alt text should be equivalent. If the user/browser can handle images then they should get the same information as if they can not. So where is the discrimination? The only difference is that people who are in a position to benefit from the graphical version can do so. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Računalniške storitve Toasted Web Mihael Zadravec s.p. --- tel: 00386 51 808136 email in msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype kontakt: mihael_zadravec --- Toasted Web http://www.toastedweb.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: What I wanted to say, is that for the navigational purposes, it should be used text rather than images with alt atribute that sould than be like alt=Image as a link that points to About company. No, alt=About company. The point of the image isn't to convey the information This is an image (the user doesn't care about that), nor is it to convey the information This is a link (the a element does that). Maybe I'm wrong, and there is nothing wrong with image based navigation that provides information about link itself thru alternative text. I am thinking like: Why sould there be an alternative? Since HTML is a fundamentally text based medium, and text is a common denominator that practically everybody can cope with (learning difficulties and language barriers aside). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On 1/9/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: What I wanted to say, is that for the navigational purposes, it should be used text rather than images with alt atribute that sould than be like alt=Image as a link that points to About company. No, alt=About company. The point of the image isn't to convey the information This is an image (the user doesn't care about that), nor is it to convey the information This is a link (the a element does that). Maybe I'm wrong, and there is nothing wrong with image based navigation that provides information about link itself thru alternative text. I am thinking like: Why sould there be an alternative? Since HTML is a fundamentally text based medium, and text is a common denominator that practically everybody can cope with (learning difficulties and language barriers aside). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk Hm... I agree, but still... Navigation should be text and not image based from many other aspects... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:44:19PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: Hm... I agree, but still... Navigation should be text and not image based from many other aspects... I'm very much in favour of text based navigation - but if an author is going to go with an image based design, then the use of img elements with alt text is the sane approach. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On 1/9/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm very much in favour of text based navigation - but if an author is going to go with an image based design, then the use of img elements with alt text is the sane approach. But the current web is not solely a text-based medium. Maximum accessibility for both assistive technology and search engines/alternative user agents means that images that are purely presentational should not be in the markup - the presentation layer is where they belong. So sane or not, hiding or replacing text with CSS is effective, as Russ's research proves, and popular, as the current crop of showcase CSS sites demonstrate. It's certainly the approach that I favour. -- Kay Smoljak business: www.cleverstarfish.com standards: kay.zombiecoder.com coldfusion: kay.smoljak.com personal: goatlady.wordpress.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:40:19PM +0900, Kay Smoljak wrote: But the current web is not solely a text-based medium. Maximum accessibility for both assistive technology and search engines/alternative user agents means that images that are purely presentational should not be in the markup - the presentation layer is where they belong. So sane or not, hiding or replacing text with CSS is effective, ... but if you are replacing text with an image, then you're replacing content with the image, so presumably the image conveys the same content? So it isn't purely presentational. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On 1/9/07, Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/9/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm very much in favour of text based navigation - but if an author is going to go with an image based design, then the use of img elements with alt text is the sane approach. But the current web is not solely a text-based medium. Maximum accessibility for both assistive technology and search engines/alternative user agents means that images that are purely presentational should not be in the markup - the presentation layer is where they belong. So sane or not, hiding or replacing text with CSS is effective, as Russ's research proves, and popular, as the current crop of showcase CSS sites demonstrate. It's certainly the approach that I favour. Yeah... Russ, thank you for information! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
From: David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... but if you are replacing text with an image, then you're replacing content with the image, so presumably the image conveys the same content? So it isn't purely presentational. Precisely, Your arguments fully address the logical layer :-) Image replacement, using CSS, was invented to allow people to make navigation menus or headings that fit a certain graphical look. FIR might better be labeled as Faux-Images. The only possible argument in favor of using FIR over embedding a real image with a meanigful ALT attribute would be one involving how search engines weigh pure text versus the ALT attribute. There is no other strong argument in its favor, unless one is simply talking about purely decorative images - and I don't believe this topic was ever really about that. As for accessibility, no image replacement technique, where the background image conveys meaning, should be considered unless it works not just for assistive readers, but for people who disable images. There are a few that work well that way, but then you must way the complexity of the markup and CSS versus a simple image tag, which is handled perfectly by even my Lynx browser. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
From: Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. I am not in favour of using graphics for navigation because it is not possible to resize the text or change the colours. That is one of the logical reasons for using image replacement, so long as the text is available to visual browsers with images disabled. Of course, it's the perfect argument for using real text in the first place ;-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
From: Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. I am not in favour of using graphics for navigation because it is not possible to resize the text or change the colours. Should have been: That is one of the logical reasons for NOT using image replacement, *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
IMHO the best solution would be not to use Flash as navigation and then the problem would be dissolved automatically :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/01/2007 7:22 pm Ok, but what if... site has navigation built with Flash. As much as I know (read: think) screenreader can not read it, so it is not accessible... And in that case, we could offer a navigation that is not displayed on the site, but is readable from the code... does that make any sense? On 1/9/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:30:46AM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: So, the best thing to use if we want not to display something, but still want it to visible to the screenreader, would be use of negative margins? Those effect something? I'm yet to run into a situation where it would be useful to have content presented only to screen reader users. The two places where content is often hidden are: * Image Replacement techniques ... but noone has managed to convince me that removing content and adding a background image is better than an img element with an alt attribute. * Skip links ... but these are useful to users of non-pointing devices (who may be visual users), and small screen users (who are visual users), not just screen reader users. Also, screen reader users may be able to see the text (possibly not well) so having different content coming from the speakers and screen could be less than helpful. If you take that view of those issues, then there isn't a lot that you might want to hide from visual users. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Ra*unalni*ke storitve Toasted Web Mihael Zadravec s.p. --- tel: 00386 51 808136 email in msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype kontakt: mihael_zadravec --- Toasted Web http://www.toastedweb.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
Hello list! Is it true that if we use like div style=display:none;, that div could be invisible for screenreader software? thank you! Mihael (Slovenija) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Mihael Zadravec wrote: Is it true that if we use like div style=display:none;, that div could be invisible for screenreader software? Yes -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] display:none; property and screenreaders
Hi Mihael, Is it true that if we use like div style=display:none;, that div could be invisible for screenreader software? Yes, here's an article with a table of affected screen readers (scroll down to the table) http://alistapart.com/articles/fir/ Joe Clark seems to claim that Jaws does read it. .Matthew Cruickshank http:/docvert.org Convert Word Documents to HTML *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
