RE: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Felix Miata wrote: It may or may not be. There's typically little or nothing that graphics can offer to improve the communication of the Congressional Record or Shakespeare's fiction. A designer typically will think so regardless whether it really does or not. This conclusion is drawn from a faulty assumption about the essential character of design. Design does not necessarily mean images or, even less so, ornament. Any mark-making or scheme thereof can be characterised as design and it refers to a strategy directed towards articulating a particular intention or meaning. For reference, you might want to see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=design Often or, indeed, usually, the most important aspects of a design are the small, almost invisible aspects - whitespace, use of typography, the _exclusion_ of unncessary information. Having read many very poorly typeset, academic editions of numerous works of literature etc, I would argue insistently that _good_ design is vital to effective communication in any medium ... ... of course, the web (and browsers) present the possibility of user originated design (user preferences for fonts, stylesheets etc). Certainly most people on this list acknowledge and appreciate that fact. Design shouldn't interfere with access to the content. Graphics can distract, particularly background images. The design itself, independant of graphics, has similar power. Whilst I would agree that a design should not interfere with access to the content, this seems like a confused point you make: I don't understand what distinction you are drawing between Design, graphics and background images and the design itself. Is there any difference? The design is precisely the strategy by which access to the content-proper (i.e. its meaning and intention) is facilitated. It's precisely due to the current implementations of graphics on the web that I expect little from them. I find no worse a randy scaled up image than an image too small to discern details in. Because they're generally equally bad, they might as well be scaled so that the physical relationships in the overall design can be preserved. ... it's true that there is a _lot_ of bad design on the web ... but it is also true that people are still adapting to the web as a medium. It took 100s of years for normative patterns of print design to become established. The font-size issue covered in this discussion is, IMHO, a hangover from print-design ... how else can you explain the curious fascination so many designers have with getting 10pt equivalent text?! ;D The problem here is not the fact of setting font-size per se, but rather the attempt to _control_ its size by specifying as pixels _or_ percentage (with percentage used as an implicit, real-world way of getting a particular pixel size which assumes the guise of being more accessible ... rather than as a genuine specification of text needing to be sized relatively to a dominant default). ... but then, I know a few designers who would like to just accept default font sizes and use true relative sizing, but are prevented from doing so by clients and so forth (Patrick raised these types of constaints). I feel that one of the good things about web 2.0 is the way it seems to have started to normalise the acceptance of default (large) font sizes ... ... that could either lead to a more widespread acceptance (or even desire) among clients to accept default font sizes in user agents (to get the web 2.0 look ;D) or, less optimistically, could lead to this style being scorned in future due to its association with a particular phase in the history of web design (i.e. it becomes passe) My apologies if this is a little of the topic of the thread, but I hate to see people misuse the word design. Either way, I don't think Felix needs to worry as much as he seems to be: as I see it, the impetus of web development generally is leading it towards the normalisation of both web standards and accessibility. However, it is perhaps inevitable that, in the process of being adopted into the mainstream, a certain amount of dilution is occuring to the original concepts themselves. Perhaps that isn't such a bad thing? (And I say that as an arch-purist! :D) Chris DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Ben said: If someone with a contrast-related vision problem can't read the default version, how can they read the site to find the alternate stylesheet in the first place?And Mike said: but with an incredibly obvious user preference control first and foremost at the top of the document; and for the sake of design, it should look good And I wrote an article talking about this type of thing, if anyone's interested:http://theletter.co.uk/longhand?id=1918In summary, the idea is provide the most important accessibility functions (like stylesheet-switcher) at the top of the document. Feedback would be appreciated. Cheers,BlairOn 30/06/06, Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you claim WCAG 1.0 AAA rating if your preferred stylesheet doesn't have sufficient color contrast for low-vision users but instead you have a stylesheet switcher andproperly marked up alternate style sheets that do?I'd look at the practicality of the situation here. If someone with acontrast-related vision problem can't read the default version, howcan they read the site to find the alternate stylesheet in the first place? At the bare minimum the style switch features need to havesufficient contrast to be read by all users.I also think low contrast is bad for general users and not justdisabled or low vision users... good contrast can be viewed as a usability feature :)cheers,Ben- http://www.200ok.com.au/--- The future has arrived; it's just not--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- Blair Millenhttp://theletter.co.ukhttp://doepud.co.uk **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
On 06/06/30 03:32 (GMT-0400) discusster apparently typed: http://theletter.co.uk/longhand?id=1918 Feedback would be appreciated. 1-Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default. 2-Normal vision users already have their default set to the size they prefer, and so don't appreciate your 80% font-size override making everything too small by 36%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/area80.html 3-Low vision users already have their default set to the size they prefer, and so don't appreciate your 130% font-size override making everything too big by 69%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by defaultStrange one... anyone else got this problem?Cheers,BlairOn 30/06/06, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On 06/06/30 03:32 (GMT-0400) discusster apparently typed: http://theletter.co.uk/longhand?id=1918 Feedback would be appreciated.1-Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default. 2-Normal vision users already have their default set to the size theyprefer, and so don't appreciate your 80% font-size override makingeverything too small by 36%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/area80.html3-Low vision users already have their default set to the size theyprefer, and so don't appreciate your 130% font-size override makingeverything too big by 69%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html--All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409Felix Miata*** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- Blair Millenhttp://theletter.co.ukhttp://doepud.co.uk **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating - Accessibility Navbar
On 06/06/30 10:40 (GMT+0100) discusster apparently typed: On 30/06/06, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/06/30 08:32 (GMT+0100) discusster apparently typed: http://theletter.co.uk/longhand?id=1918 Feedback would be appreciated. 1-Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default. Strange one... anyone else got this problem? The alternate stylesheets worked, but reloading went back to completely unstyled in both browsers. Now that problem is gone, replaced by defaulting to the mousetype from handheld.css. A: Top-posters who don't trim mailing list footers and .sigs. Q: What's the 2nd most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
perhaps it was just a moment of unstyled-ness before the loadThat's a relief, thanks Frances!BlairOn 30/06/06, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was a spot slow to load, but FF got your stylesheet, so perhaps it was just a moment of unstyled-ness before the load? I've found occasionally if a site is slow, FF gives up and doesn't display the sheet at all unless it's refreshed. Frances Berriman http://www.fberriman.com From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of discusster Sent: 30 June 2006 10:40 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default Strange one... anyone else got this problem? Cheers, Blair On 30/06/06, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/06/30 03:32 (GMT-0400) discusster apparently typed: http://theletter.co.uk/longhand?id=1918 Feedback would be appreciated. 1-Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default. 2-Normal vision users already have their default set to the size they prefer, and so don't appreciate your 80% font-size override making everything too small by 36%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/area80.html 3-Low vision users already have their default set to the size they prefer, and so don't appreciate your 130% font-size override making everything too big by 69%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata*** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Blair Millen http://theletter.co.uk http://doepud.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Blair Millenhttp://theletter.co.ukhttp://doepud.co.uk **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Felix Miata wrote: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html can you explain the logic of separating this content into two columns that are not continuous down the page, but short sections across the page. I was reading down the left hand column and wondering why it kept jumping... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Firefox and SeaMonkey here seem to be loading no stylesheet by default Strange one... anyone else got this problem? I've only seen it dressed Blair... looks good to me. Firefox 1.0.7 Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating - Accessibility Navbar
-- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com Internet Explorer 6 is crap. My apologies to the IE7 team for the above signature. That was an internal/inside joke, never meant to be seen in the wild... -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
I also think low contrast is bad for general users and not just disabled or low vision users... good contrast can be viewed as a usability feature :) Or not ;) I personally dislike high contrast as it strains my eyes more than an overall combination with not that sharp/aggressive/tense difference. On the other hand I can live with switching *to* lo contrast variation or modify it in my UA (see below). In summary, the idea is provide the most important accessibility functions (like stylesheet-switcher) at the top of the document. Why? (I'm playing devil's advocate now for a while...) Is it really the most important feature in the design to accomplish the most important goals of most users? Thus it should be one of the most important functions/tools/goals of the web site? I don't think so. I think the ball is on the side of browser vendors. This should be UI/UA thing, not a job for the website itself. -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Jan Brasna wrote: I think the ball is on the side of browser vendors. This should be UI/UA thing, not a job for the website itself. Absolutely! And lets add a page-zoom (Like Opera) as a must for ALL browsers . . . -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
On 06/06/30 18:59 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed: Jan Brasna wrote: I think the ball is on the side of browser vendors. This should be UI/UA thing, not a job for the website itself. Absolutely! And lets add a page-zoom (Like Opera) as a must for ALL browsers . . . An still open enhancement request was filed to include this in Gecko over 7 years ago: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4821 Zoom functions are designed primarily as user defense mechanisms to be used against px dimensioned pages and pages that disregard or override user settings. They are rarely necessary on flexible dimensioned pages that respect user preferences. It's unfortunate that both current and proposed versions of WCAG omit coverage of this fundamental relationship between web design and accessibility. -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
An still open enhancement request was filed to include this ... We all know how it's like with the browsers today :/ Zoom functions are designed primarily as user defense mechanisms Sorry Felix, but this is really nonsense. It is made for what it should do - making the whole site more legible/bigger if you need to, with keeping all the proportions correct when scaling all elements. Nowadays there are still many raster elements on the pages that can't be sized in text dimensions (what is by the way a bit weird if you think about it) and it is *the task of the UA to arrange the output with the correct ratios, be it higher DPI, small screen, enlarged page* etc. ... Does it make sense? -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
On 06/06/30 21:43 (GMT+0200) Jan Brasna apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: Zoom functions are designed primarily as user defense mechanisms Sorry Felix, but this is really nonsense. Necessary nonsense required as a result of virtually universal poor web page design. A web browser viewport is a naturally fluid and adaptable space that most designers refuse to or don't know to embrace. Ordinary users of pages that fully embrace fluid nature rarely find reason to try to change those pages via browser controls. Without the ubiquity of print pages hosted on the web the browser makers wouldn't have had motivation to provide zoom function. It is made for what it should do - making the whole site more legible/bigger if you need to, Exactly, and it wouldn't be necessary if most web pages were naturally fluid web designs rather than artificially constrained print designs hosted on the web. with keeping all the proportions correct when scaling all elements. Nowadays there are still many raster elements on the pages that can't be sized in text dimensions (what is by the way a bit weird if you think about it) and it is *the task of the UA to arrange the output with the correct ratios, be it higher DPI, small screen, enlarged page* etc. ... In case you've missed it, I've offered as example pages that have a grand total of 0 elements sized in px or absolute units. They work fine no matter your reasonable combination of viewport size and default text size or zoom level, reasonable being defined as comfortably long enough line lengths fitting in the available width of the viewport. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/indexx.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html Pages besides the above on http://www.cssliquid.com/ and elsewhere confirm artificial size constraints aren't necessary. Em is a proportional unit that works when it is permitted to. Does it make sense? As long as I've been using them browsers have been capable of rendering images at whatever size the HTML (and later CSS) has dictated. That the quality of doing same may or not be desirable with deviations from intrinsic image size is an independant issue. -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Take for instance 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.) This can practically never be fully complied with, I'd argue. Well it's certainly possible, but as you say the practicalities mean it pretty much doesn't happen. Perhaps in future we'll have this sort of power as people store data in formats like XML and have systems able to accurately automatically translate content into other languages. I think the spirit of that item would probably be more practically addressed by avoiding the nothin' but PDF syndrome :) -Ben -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Ben Buchanan wrote: I think the spirit of that item would probably be more practically addressed by avoiding the nothin' but PDF syndrome :) But what if I preferred my documents sent as PDFs? ;) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
On 06/06/29 19:25 (GMT-0400) Kat apparently typed: This may be a persnickety question: Can you claim WCAG 1.0 AAA rating if your preferred stylesheet doesn't have sufficient color contrast for low-vision users but instead you have a stylesheet switcher and properly marked up alternate style sheets that do? The catch is that MIE does not provide access to the alternate styles, should JavaScript be disabled. Why do you find it necessary to have it in reduced accessibility mode by default? Why not make the alternate stylesheet reduce the contrast? I don't see how you can claim compliance with the spirit if not the letter otherwise. -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] WCAG 1.0 AAA Rating
Felix Miata wrote: Why do you find it necessary to have it in reduced accessibility mode by default? Why not make the alternate stylesheet reduce the contrast? I'll hazard a guess and say: real-world requirements imposed by marketing and branding? P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
