RE: [WSG] Accessibility related

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I take it from your website you are in Sydney?

Thought you might like to know how legislation works in the UK. 

If someone has a problem they normally try to deal with it through the UK
court system and therefore UK law. If they don’t get an answer or the
answer they didn’t want they will then try to take action through the
European court system and EU law.

In the UK you here a lot of, “taken to the European Court” after a case is
lost or inconclusive in the local legal system.


Original Message:
-
From: Amit Karmakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:05:53 +1000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Accessibility related


Looks like I've answered my own question. Here we go
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/Overview.html

 Regards,
Amit Karmakar
www.karmakars.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Amit Karmakar
Sent: Thursday, 27 May 2004 2:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Accessibility related

Howdy People,

Lame as it may sound but other than the UK which other countries in Europe
are complying to the Accessibility criterion? Any takers?

... and Russ,
Just like we have your wonderful work on Web
Standards(http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/) How about
creating one on Accessibility? Or if members of the WSG mailing list wish to
do one?? 

Just bouncing off me ideas.

Regards,
Amit Karmakar
www.karmakars.com




**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged
information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
*
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 message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 




mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.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] Accessibility related

[russ - maxdesign]

This WAI country list is good but Aussies should be aware that NOIE no
longer exists and AGIMO has taken over some of its responsibilities:
http://www.agimo.gov.au/

A great overview of accessibility can be found here (from Andy Budd):
http://www.skillswap.org/downloads/accessibility.pps

Russ


> Looks like I've answered my own question. Here we go
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/Overview.html
> 
> Regards,
> Amit Karmakar
> www.karmakars.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Amit Karmakar
> Sent: Thursday, 27 May 2004 2:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [WSG] Accessibility related
> 
> Howdy People,
> 
> Lame as it may sound but other than the UK which other countries in Europe
> are complying to the Accessibility criterion? Any takers?
> 
> ... and Russ,
> Just like we have your wonderful work on Web
> Standards(http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/) How about
> creating one on Accessibility? Or if members of the WSG mailing list wish to
> do one?? 
> 
> Just bouncing off me ideas.
> 
> Regards,
> Amit Karmakar
> www.karmakars.com
> 


The Australian Museum.
Australia's first - and leading - natural sciences and anthropology
museum. Visit www.amonline.net.au

The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in
this email message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential
and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or
copying of this email or any attached files is unauthorised. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender.The
Australian Museum does not guarantee the accuracy of any information
contained in this e-mail or attached files. As Internet communications
are not secure, the Australian Museum does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.

RE: [WSG] Accessibility related

[Amit Karmakar]

Looks like I've answered my own question. Here we go
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/Overview.html

 Regards,
Amit Karmakar
www.karmakars.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Amit Karmakar
Sent: Thursday, 27 May 2004 2:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Accessibility related

Howdy People,

Lame as it may sound but other than the UK which other countries in Europe
are complying to the Accessibility criterion? Any takers?

... and Russ,
Just like we have your wonderful work on Web
Standards(http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/) How about
creating one on Accessibility? Or if members of the WSG mailing list wish to
do one?? 

Just bouncing off me ideas.

Regards,
Amit Karmakar
www.karmakars.com




**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged
information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
*
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 message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] Definition list formatting problem in IE

[Miles Tillinger]

Surprise!  A formatting problem in IE...

In IE5+ and Opera, the second dd, which contains the Category links, is jumping up and 
floating to the right of the first dd with the URL.  It displays fine in Firefox and 
Netscape 7.

html/css is at http://www.streetdaddy.com/wsg/index2.html

Thanks in advance,

Miles.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

[WSG] Accessibility related

[Amit Karmakar]

Howdy People,

Lame as it may sound but other than the UK which other countries in Europe
are complying to the Accessibility criterion? Any takers?

... and Russ,
Just like we have your wonderful work on Web
Standards(http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/) How about
creating one on Accessibility? Or if members of the WSG mailing list wish to
do one?? 

Just bouncing off me ideas.

Regards,
Amit Karmakar
www.karmakars.com




**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
*
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] A New Community Based Web Site for Review

[RC Pierce]

D;oh! Here are the correct links to the style sheets:

http://www.wdfcs.ca/fcss/default.css

http://www.wdfcs.ca/fcss/datab.css

http://www.wedfcs.ca/fcss/feetab.css

Sorry, folks.

Roy

- Original Message - 
From: "RC Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: [WSG] A New Community Based Web Site for Review


Well, I suppose it's about time I outed myself... Having spent half the winter 
creating this site,
the owner is ready to officially unveil it in the coming weeks.: It had its unofficial 
launch on
April 2nd, this year.

I chose the Standards Based method for two reasons (apart from the obvious: 
accessibility):

1. Forward looking: I like to think that in more capable hands than mine, the site can 
be easily
shaped in the future.
2. Simpler: Since the folks who will be looking after it have no web development 
experience, I
wanted markup that could be easily understood and content that is readily accessible. 
Hopefully this
will go a long way toward preventing mistakes.

The home page is below:

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm

The stylesheet can be found at,

 http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/default.css

There is one validation warning in the stylesheet for which I have no explanation; to 
wit:

Line 0 : font-family ... a generic font should be given as a last resort.

To avoid using fonts that may or may not exist on the visitor's computer, I opted to 
use only the
generic serif and sans-serif fonts in most cases. Is there a problem with this 
approach?

Also, the topmost rule was added to prevent Opera from breaking. I've tried to arrange 
the cascade
to please that browser, since it is the pickiest about that sort of thing. I spent 
hours rearranging
the sheet, and found that putting a dummy rule at the top cured a lot of the problem. 
Someday I'll
be able to figure out why.

It's a relatively small site, about 22 pages. For a framework, I adopted Russ's 
two-column layout
(Thanks Russ!), and 'borrowed' the technique for the navigation from Eric Meyer. 
Hopefully, I have
done enough development work on these ideas to render the result 'loosely derivative.'

The site is very elastic, with marginal breakage to the masthead in the small window 
of Opera. As
the image is absolutely positioned, and not floated, the textual content has nowhere 
to go but down,
and cannot slip below the image.

The audience is very likely not of the internet set, being primarily seniors, so there 
is nothing of
eye candy, and virtually no images. Our area comprises of mostly dial-up users so 
bandwidth was a
serious concern.

I've made every effort to ensure that the site meets with all three Priority levels in 
the WAI
guidelines, and every page is validated XHTML 1.0 Strict..

The site uses one table for layout on the Contact Us page. I had floats but was 
running into
problems with them so reverted to a table. The page is still Bobby rated AAA. The 
stylesheet for
this table is at,

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/datab.css

There is one other data table, which uses the following stylesheet:

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/feetab.css

The navigation in the main menu has hidden pipes to comply with Priority 3 guidelines 
which
stuipulate that adjacent links must be separated by a non-whitespace character 
surrounded by
whitespace. Since I don't use 's, and they are inline, I chose that element as my 
hidden
container. Previously I was using 's, and later I used 's, but the menu 
printed vertically
when styles were removed. Now it prints horizontally.

The markup is expanded to make maintenance and revision simpler for the non-html 
familiar staff who
will be looking after the site (once they're trained).

There is one issue, though, which relates to the use of Javascript to publish e-mail 
addresses as
the page is loaded. I cannot figure out a way to include  
elements in a manner
that will validate. Is it an inline/block level issue?

As this is a secondary issue (for the most part) I have simply included information to 
explain that
e-mail addresses will not be visible if scripts are not supported (or turned off) in 
the user's
browser. If there is a better way to do this, I'm listening.

The site is mounted on Telus's Shared Hosting servers, so there is very little in the 
way of
Server-side that can be done; plus the fact that I'm a newbie, and know nothing of 
server-side
includes, anyway.

My test environment (Windows XP and Win98SE) includes IE 6/Win, Mozilla Firebird 0.7 
and  Firefox
0.8, Netscape 7.1 and Opera 7.23, all of which render the pages in like fashion, with 
only very
slight differences. I have had  to use a couple of hacks in the sytles, most notably 
to ensure that
the nav menu renders the same width in Opera/NS/FF as it does in IE6/Win, and to 
prevent the 3 pixel
jump to the left that occurs when the navbar content runs out. Too bad this hack won't 
work for
UL's, OL's or DL's, though. To combat the shift, I've had to inve

RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table)

[Kay Smoljak]

> The kind of clients I get are clients who think this 
> is a great site
> : www.canadianlakes.com.au

And it looks fine, for the kind of site it is. If I had worked on it, it
would look almost the same, except it would be valid html and css and it
wouldn't use frames. Just because you're building sites in a valid way
doesn't mean your pitches to clients or the sites you deliver need to look
any different (ok, they will look better, but an untrained eye probably
wouldn't notice anything specific, nor should they). 

K.

--
Kay Smoljak
Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation
PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/
Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 



*
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] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table)

[Lachlan Hardy]

Thanks folks for the great responses. I will certainly incorporate some of
the things you've mentioned into my business behaviours from now on

However, it seems fairly apparent that none of you have encountered the
problems I'm talking about (except Marc, I think). Perhaps I wasn't clear
enough. The kind of clients I get are clients who think this is a great site
: www.canadianlakes.com.au

And it does look quite nice. Pity about the fact that it still isn't indexed
by Google after it has been up for around two years. And you folks can
easily spot all the other problems such as the poor navigation, table
layout, and the fact that many pages have no text on them whatsoever. They
don't even use CSS to colour fonts or links (but who needs to when you can
use yet another image?). A year ago, that site had no text at all

If you still don't know what I'm talking about; if you've never encountered
this, don't trouble yourselves. You're lucky

Mike Kear says "It's my opinion that if you are losing business because you
are quoting on standards-compliant sites, then you're doing it all wrong.
Standards compliance should give you a competitive advantage over the other
mugs who haven't learned about standards yet."

I totally agree with you, Mike, which is why I adopted standards and attempt
to provide accessibility. Unfortunately, it is not working for me. So, what
do you do?

Thanks again, folks
Lachlan





*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] A New Community Based Web Site for Review

[RC Pierce]

Well, I suppose it's about time I outed myself... Having spent half the winter 
creating this site,
the owner is ready to officially unveil it in the coming weeks.: It had its unofficial 
launch on
April 2nd, this year.

I chose the Standards Based method for two reasons (apart from the obvious: 
accessibility):

1. Forward looking: I like to think that in more capable hands than mine, the site can 
be easily
shaped in the future.
2. Simpler: Since the folks who will be looking after it have no web development 
experience, I
wanted markup that could be easily understood and content that is readily accessible. 
Hopefully this
will go a long way toward preventing mistakes.

The home page is below:

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm

The stylesheet can be found at,

 http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/default.css

There is one validation warning in the stylesheet for which I have no explanation; to 
wit:

Line 0 : font-family ... a generic font should be given as a last resort.

To avoid using fonts that may or may not exist on the visitor's computer, I opted to 
use only the
generic serif and sans-serif fonts in most cases. Is there a problem with this 
approach?

Also, the topmost rule was added to prevent Opera from breaking. I've tried to arrange 
the cascade
to please that browser, since it is the pickiest about that sort of thing. I spent 
hours rearranging
the sheet, and found that putting a dummy rule at the top cured a lot of the problem. 
Someday I'll
be able to figure out why.

It's a relatively small site, about 22 pages. For a framework, I adopted Russ's 
two-column layout
(Thanks Russ!), and 'borrowed' the technique for the navigation from Eric Meyer. 
Hopefully, I have
done enough development work on these ideas to render the result 'loosely derivative.'

The site is very elastic, with marginal breakage to the masthead in the small window 
of Opera. As
the image is absolutely positioned, and not floated, the textual content has nowhere 
to go but down,
and cannot slip below the image.

The audience is very likely not of the internet set, being primarily seniors, so there 
is nothing of
eye candy, and virtually no images. Our area comprises of mostly dial-up users so 
bandwidth was a
serious concern.

I've made every effort to ensure that the site meets with all three Priority levels in 
the WAI
guidelines, and every page is validated XHTML 1.0 Strict..

The site uses one table for layout on the Contact Us page. I had floats but was 
running into
problems with them so reverted to a table. The page is still Bobby rated AAA. The 
stylesheet for
this table is at,

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/datab.css

There is one other data table, which uses the following stylesheet:

http://www.wdfcs.ca/index.htm/fcss/feetab.css

The navigation in the main menu has hidden pipes to comply with Priority 3 guidelines 
which
stuipulate that adjacent links must be separated by a non-whitespace character 
surrounded by
whitespace. Since I don't use 's, and they are inline, I chose that element as my 
hidden
container. Previously I was using 's, and later I used 's, but the menu 
printed vertically
when styles were removed. Now it prints horizontally.

The markup is expanded to make maintenance and revision simpler for the non-html 
familiar staff who
will be looking after the site (once they're trained).

There is one issue, though, which relates to the use of Javascript to publish e-mail 
addresses as
the page is loaded. I cannot figure out a way to include  
elements in a manner
that will validate. Is it an inline/block level issue?

As this is a secondary issue (for the most part) I have simply included information to 
explain that
e-mail addresses will not be visible if scripts are not supported (or turned off) in 
the user's
browser. If there is a better way to do this, I'm listening.

The site is mounted on Telus's Shared Hosting servers, so there is very little in the 
way of
Server-side that can be done; plus the fact that I'm a newbie, and know nothing of 
server-side
includes, anyway.

My test environment (Windows XP and Win98SE) includes IE 6/Win, Mozilla Firebird 0.7 
and  Firefox
0.8, Netscape 7.1 and Opera 7.23, all of which render the pages in like fashion, with 
only very
slight differences. I have had  to use a couple of hacks in the sytles, most notably 
to ensure that
the nav menu renders the same width in Opera/NS/FF as it does in IE6/Win, and to 
prevent the 3 pixel
jump to the left that occurs when the navbar content runs out. Too bad this hack won't 
work for
UL's, OL's or DL's, though. To combat the shift, I've had to invent content that will 
push the list
below the line of distortion.

I had to combat the 'chopped div' effect in the Contact page, so applied the Holly 
Hack to that. The
little disclaimer div would partially disappear as the page was scrolled up and down 
using the
scrollbar. The hack worked to put a stop to that.

A clearing div is used to preserve the margin around the mai

[WSG] [wsg] position: absolute on the mac not displaying images

[Benjamin]

I have 2 images used for a bar graph where one over laps the other.
however on ie5.1 mac its not displaying the images when the css tells
the images to position absolutely.

anyone got any ideas?

thanks


Benjamin
Life through a polaroid

www.lifethroughapolaroid.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] Browsers Emulator - On open source [OT]

[Chris Blown]

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go.. Its a common misconception that
you cannot sell open source software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

;)


On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:56, Justin French wrote:
> Screw opensource -- I would pay serious cash for such a tool!  This is 
> MUCH better than browsercam, because
> 


*
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]

[Chris Dimmock]

Hi,

Taco asked: Are there currently any laws in Australia that dictate a
website should be accessible to vision impaired people etc.?

Answer: Yes - The legislation is the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

I wrote an overview of the (specifically) Australian situation a while
back, with links that give you much more information:

http://www.cogentis.com.au/website-accessibility-issues.html

Hope it helps.

Best regrds

Chris


- Original Message -
From: Ted Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:16:57 -0700
Subject: RE: [WSG]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


This is an old article.  The sydney games lawsuit was the shot that
rang around the world.  As far as I know, he won the suit and
governments around the world have begun requiring compliance wtih
disabilities acts.  In the United States, it is section 508 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  Any company that does business with
the government must have an accessible web site.
England has just begun requiring accessible web sites.  I spoke with a
man from Italy that says they are also required to pass the minimum
level of Bobby tests. The new Olympic web site for the games in Greece
are supposed to be fully accessible.
 
It's not difficult to program a site to be accessible, you just need
to be aware of what is needed.  A standards compliant web site is
almost always an accessible web site.  Just make sure you use your alt
tags and title tags and you are 75% there.
 
If you haven't downloaded and installed the web developers tool bar
for mozilla, go to
http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/ and get it. 
It will give you accessibility testing and lots more for free.
 
Ted
www.superiorpixels.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Taco Fleur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:51 PM
To: Web Standards Group (E-mail)
Subject: [WSG] 



Are there currently any laws in Australia that dictate a website
should be accessible to vision impaired people etc.?
If so, to what websites does it apply and has anyone taken any
websites to court over not being accessible?
What I could find so far only the following: 
- http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202000/SportsBriefs904.htm 

Are there any links to what standards certain websites need to apply? 

I believe this has been asked before however a quick scan though my
mailbox did not return anything.

Thanks 

Register now for the 3rd National Conference on Tourism Futures, being
held in Townsville, North Queensland 4-6 August - www.tq.com.au/tfconf
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] Making Flash Codes validate

[Jaime W]

Hello everyone

 

I am facing some validation issues (XHTML 1.0 Transitional)
with the following flash object codes:

 



 codebase="">

 WIDTH=126 HEIGHT=272> 

 
 
 



 

 

It’s the 1st time I am adding some flash
content so am unsure of what’s right or wrong.

 

 

The demo page can be found here http://designs.sodesires.com/scs/

 

Any pointers will be great. Thanks.

 

Best Wishes, 
Jaime ...


 

Re: [WSG] wsg newbie questions

[Mordechai Peller]

Rick Faaberg wrote:
- no html emails, only text (I'm tired of resizing fonts and stuff to make
messages readable
 

A better solution would be to ask people that if they send HTML to use 
some minimum size. Also, perhaps to always send a plain text version as 
an option.

- always have some text in the subject field that describes the "subject"
 

People are already suppose to do this. But should you be complaining? 
"wsg newbie questions" says nothing of value about your questions. In 
fact, it is even somewhat misleading, which is even worse.

Thanks! Great list, otherwise! :-)
 

That it is.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] Help - tableless design with 2 colums

[Razvan Pop]

Hello,
Please go to http://www.seoed.com/index.php
I'm trying to position 2 divs. The Main div and the right column div.
They should look like here: http://play.cpea.ro/screen/seod.gif
I had a hard time with the menu. Took me an hour to make it work in IE, 
Firefox and Opera.

This is giving me a headache. Any feedback/suggestions would be appreciated.
The css: http://www.seoed.com/styles/seoed.css
Thank you.
Please check it with Firefox and Opera also
*
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] Browsers Emulator

[Kristof Neirynck]

Justin French wrote:
What I'd like to see is a program for Mac OS X that will load a URL into 
all currently running browsers (including those in X11, VirtualPC and 
MacClassic, so it's truly cross-platform), take a screen shot, and 
present them back in one tabbed interface as a series of screen shots 
which the designer can view to get a decent overview of what's going on 
browser-to-browser in one location.

Not exactly what you asked for... but this kinda works too:
Paste this mystical code between  and 

Open your page in all required browsers, wait 5 secs for them all to 
reload your page after you made any changes.

>
> Screw opensource -- I would pay serious cash for such a tool!
This is gonna cost you! ;-)
--
Kristof
*
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] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[russ - maxdesign]

I agree with Patrick, blind users use quick access methods like jumping
through links and headings on the page that you'd need to know about.

Having the tools at hand is still useful as it allows you to get a basic
grasp of how they work. You can also test small parts of a page to see how
it works.

The best method to see how your site works for blind users is to go and
watch a blind user in action. In Sydney, the Royal Blind society has a
service (Adaptive Technology Consultancy Service - 02 9334 3400) that allows
you to book a time and sit with vision impaired and blind users - for a
small fee. I'm sure most capital cities would do the same.

You can be treat it as part of your general user testing - giving users
tasks to perform and observing how they achieve the tasks (how quickly,
easily, how many clicks, problems etc). Most blind users are only too happy
to tell you where you can improve your methods.  :)

Russ



> Hey Pat,
> Thanks a lot for the advice, It's best then if I steer away from 'hands on'
> testing of Assistive Technology and just follow the guidelines as is.
> 
> Thanks again, that was a huge help.
> 
> 
> Jamie Mason: Design
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: P.H.Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 May 2004 15:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
> 
> Ok, the proper general term for this is "Assistive Technology" (AT for short).
> 
> Text/braille browsers: Lynx and BrailleSurf
> Screenreaders and speech browsers: Dolphin Supernova, JAWS, IBM HPR,
> pwWebSpeak, WindowsEyes.
> Most of these have demo versions you can download. Howerver, I would say that
> - unless you actually know
> what you're doing when using these browsers - it may do more harm than good to
> test in these (especially
> the screenreaders), as your testing will not reflect the way a regular user
> would employ them. There are
> many setting etc (e.g. verbosity settings) that are not ideal in the default.
> Also, many people make the mistake
> of listening to the entire output of the screenreader, whereas visually
> impaired users will skip through a page at
> high speed, then often backtrack and slow down as needed (similar to visually
> skim-reading the page).
> Without good command of the software, your testing will be inherently flawed.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jamie Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 26 May 2004 11:16
>> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>> Subject: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
>> 
>> Hi,
>> I recently downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major
>> browsers for testing (and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was
>> curious after reading the post on 'Lynx'...
>> 
>> Does anyone know the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text
>> browsers etc? I know nothing about these and would really love a chance to be
>> able to test my work on these directly. Apologies for not knowing the correct
>> pc term for categorising these.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> Jamie Mason: Design

*
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] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[P.H.Lauke]

> It's a real heads-up to listen to a 
> website the way
> the people using speech software like JAWS hear it.

Or, as I always say: it's a real eye opener ;)
(and before anybody pipes up about how un-PC this is, a colleague
of mine who is visually impaired often uses that phrase as well - for
a bit of shock value)

P
*
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] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[Peter Firminger]

Actually, contact your local blind society and see if they have someone that
can show you the ropes. It's a real heads-up to listen to a website the way
the people using speech software like JAWS hear it.

P


*
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] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[Jamie Mason]

Title: Message



Hey 
Pat,
Thanks a lot for 
the advice, It's best then if I steer away from 'hands on' testing of Assistive 
Technology and just follow the guidelines as is.
 
Thanks again, that 
was a huge help.
 
 

Jamie 
Mason: Design
 

-Original Message-From: P.H.Lauke 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 May 2004 
15:06To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WSG] 
Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
Ok, 
the proper general term for this is "Assistive Technology" (AT for 
short).
 
Text/braille browsers: Lynx and BrailleSurf
Screenreaders and speech browsers: Dolphin Supernova, JAWS, IBM HPR, 
pwWebSpeak, WindowsEyes.
Most 
of these have demo versions you can download. Howerver, I would say that - 
unless you actually know
what 
you're doing when using these browsers - it may do more harm than good to test 
in these (especially
the 
screenreaders), as your testing will not reflect the way a regular user would 
employ them. There are
many 
setting etc (e.g. verbosity settings) that are not ideal in the default. Also, 
many people make the mistake
of 
listening to the entire output of the screenreader, whereas visually impaired 
users will skip through a page at
high 
speed, then often backtrack and slow down as needed (similar to visually 
skim-reading the page).
Without good command of the software, your testing will be inherently 
flawed.
 
Patrick

Patrick H. 
LaukeWebmaster / University of Salfordhttp://www.salford.ac.uk 

  -Original Message-From: Jamie Mason 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 26 May 2004 
  11:16To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [WSG] 
  Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
  Hi,
  I recently 
  downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major browsers for 
  testing (and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was curious after 
  reading the post on 'Lynx'...
   
  Does anyone know 
  the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text browsers etc? I 
  know nothing about these and would really love a chance to be able to test my 
  work on these directly. Apologies for not knowing the correct pc term for 
  categorising these.
   
  Thanks in 
  advance,
   
  
  Jamie Mason: Design
   
   

RE: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[P.H.Lauke]

Title: Message



Ok, 
the proper general term for this is "Assistive Technology" (AT for 
short).
 
Text/braille browsers: Lynx and BrailleSurf
Screenreaders and speech browsers: Dolphin Supernova, JAWS, IBM HPR, 
pwWebSpeak, WindowsEyes.
Most 
of these have demo versions you can download. Howerver, I would say that - 
unless you actually know
what 
you're doing when using these browsers - it may do more harm than good to test 
in these (especially
the 
screenreaders), as your testing will not reflect the way a regular user would 
employ them. There are
many 
setting etc (e.g. verbosity settings) that are not ideal in the default. Also, 
many people make the mistake
of 
listening to the entire output of the screenreader, whereas visually impaired 
users will skip through a page at
high 
speed, then often backtrack and slow down as needed (similar to visually 
skim-reading the page).
Without good command of the software, your testing will be inherently 
flawed.
 
Patrick

Patrick H. 
LaukeWebmaster / University of Salfordhttp://www.salford.ac.uk 


  -Original Message-From: Jamie Mason 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 26 May 2004 
  11:16To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [WSG] 
  Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
  Hi,
  I recently 
  downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major browsers for 
  testing (and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was curious after 
  reading the post on 'Lynx'...
   
  Does anyone know 
  the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text browsers etc? I 
  know nothing about these and would really love a chance to be able to test my 
  work on these directly. Apologies for not knowing the correct pc term for 
  categorising these.
   
  Thanks in 
  advance,
   
  
  Jamie Mason: Design
   
   

RE: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[cc lee]

Hi there,
First post with the WSG since joing the other day...
Anyway (FAO) Jamie, for PC users, you can download a 30 day trial of a 
Screen Reader at:

http://www-3.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
I've not tried it myself, but i got the link from an article on A List Apart 
(itself a decent read at: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/ - check 
it out).

Hope this is of help (and use).
Chi

From: Jamie Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:16:04 +0100
Hi,
I recently downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major
browsers for testing (and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was
curious after reading the post on 'Lynx'...
Does anyone know the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text
browsers etc? I know nothing about these and would really love a chance to
be able to test my work on these directly. Apologies for not knowing the
correct pc term for categorising these.
Thanks in advance,
Jamie Mason: Design

_
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Giles Clark]

Afternoon all,

One of the best quick overviews of the state of accessibility I have seen
is:

http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-we
bsite-legal-requirements.shtml


It covers the UK's DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and has some handy
links to background material , EU standards, the Syndney Olympics
background, a review of 1000 sites, etc

regards

Giles


***
Splash!PR & Marketing
Windmill Oast
Benenden Road,
Rolvenden
Kent TN17 4PF

t: 01580 241177
f: 01580 241188

THIS MESSAGE MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL:
if received by you in error, I apologise - please tell me and delete the
message





*
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] legal requirements for accessibility

[Mike Pepper]

There's a simple business argument in favour of accessibility: more hits
and, for those with physical or cerebral impairments (and by that we are not
simply talking blind or otherwise disabled users but those in their autumn
years who represent a considerable and growing online audience), a reason to
bookmark the site. Simple economics. A standards-compliant site is, by its
very nature, well on the way to accessibility.

Check out http://www.maccaws.org for a brief on the business case for
standards compliance.

Incidentally, the Guild of Accessible Wed Designers - www.gawds.org -
officially opens its doors to membership today, and we're offering the
opportunity to ... yes, you guessed it, do a site redesign. We've even got
those wonderful things call prizes to give away at
http://www.gawds.org/about/competition.php :o)

Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
www.seowebsitepromotion.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
* 

[WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here)

[Jamie Mason]

Title: Message



Hi,
I recently 
downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major browsers for testing 
(and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was curious after reading the 
post on 'Lynx'...
 
Does anyone know 
the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text browsers etc? I know 
nothing about these and would really love a chance to be able to test my work on 
these directly. Apologies for not knowing the correct pc term for categorising 
these.
 
Thanks in 
advance,
 

Jamie 
Mason: Design
 
 

Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability

[Jeremy Keith]

Lachlan Hardy wrote:
I understand the concept of just
doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and 
such
and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or
'accessibility'.
"Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing 
things
like this? How much is that costing me?"
I understand what you're saying Lachlan, but surely the important point 
is what your answer to such a question would be. I know that in my case 
the answer would be "nada, zip, zero, not a penny extra."

Standards compliant mark-up and accessibility "hooks" aren't extra 
features that get bolted on with an associated cost. They're simply a 
regular way of working (which, as I understood it, was the point of 
Jeffrey Veen's speech).

If your client is going to get extremely pedantic about it then I guess 
you could answer that adding s to form elements, "summary" 
attributes to tables and "alt" attributes to images could cost minutes 
of time. All in all though, they probably take less time than the 
duration of your bathroom breaks during any given project. ;-)

As for valid mark-up costing more, my experience has been the opposite. 
If the mark-up is written in a sloppy or non-standard fashion to begin 
with, then the time spent debugging for various browsers/platforms 
increases greatly.

Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or 
accessibility,
my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it 
comes
up later, I'm royally stuffed
I don't see why. Unless they're labouring under the misapprehension 
that standards and accessibility cost money. The truth is they're just 
good habits.

So don't fear the money question. Just give them a straight, truthful 
answer.

Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to tell them about the 
Search Engine Optimisation benefits of standards-compliant, accessible 
mark-up. In my experience, clients who couldn't care less about 
visually impaired human beings care greatly about making their sites 
accessible to the Googlebot. Explain to them that Google is essentially 
blind. Then they'll get it.

HTH,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.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] legal requirements for accessability

[theGrafixGuy]

Hear Hear,

Excellent Post!

Another tip I have found to be very successful, is the following quote (and
this was told to me by a client!)

The client is not paying you for the few minutes it takes to change the site
from blue to green, he is paying you to know what buttons to push and what
methods to use to best implement this - if the client is billed $100 for a
30 second change that occurs site wide - they are going to think they got
off cheap and you are going to feel like a bandit who got away with the
king's jewels! Especially, since you did it so quickly for them. It's a win
- win situation! You look good and so does the client!

Sincerely,
 
Brian Grimmer
 
theGrafixGuy
http://www.thegrafixguy.com 
503-887-4943
925-226-4085 (fax)
 
This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM
Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and
will be honored and respected.

-Original Message-
From: Michael Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability

There's a saying in the sales business (/me thinking back all those years to
when I was a sales trainer):Sell them what they want, and all the rest
comes along for free. 

If the customer loves the car's hot stereo, sell them the hot stereo and the
rest of the car comes along for free.

IF the house buyer falls in love with the kitchen, let them have the
kitchen, and the rest of the house comes along for free.

IF they want an accessible site, sell them an accessible site, and the good
design and easy navigation comes along for free.

If they want a web presence, sell them a web presence, and the accessible
design, good layout, easy navigation comes along for free.

SO it's your job when you first meet a prospective client to find out what
it is they want.  And what they need.  (Not necessarily the same things)
Then you sell them that.   When you build it, you build it as well as it's
possible to do, given your cost and time parameters.  Just because the
client wanted this and that and something else, without mentioning standards
compliance, doesn't mean you cant build a site like that.   When you get a
house built, you tell the builder you want this room, that cupboard, this
kind of roof, that kind of bathroom,  but he still builds structural
strength, water proofing, adequate foundations etc in even if you didn't
specify it in your requirements.


And as to cost, I've found that building to standards has REDUCED my time
(and therefore my cost) to build a site.  By forcing discipline on my html
code, and completely separating content and presentation, it's made many
things more simple.   And since the ongoing maintenance of the site is FAR
easier, it's going to make the cost of ownership of a site over the whole
life much lower than it would otherwise have been.It's my opinion that
if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant
sites, then you're doing it all wrong.   Standards compliance should give
you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about
standards yet.

Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 5:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability

[snip]

So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care
about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they
actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually
care if people can use their site?

The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just
doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such
and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or
'accessibility'.
"Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things
like this? How much is that costing me?"

Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility,
my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes
up later, I'm royally stuffed

I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel
the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if
I try to push the point, they are no longer my client

So, how do the rest of you deal with this?


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & gettin

RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability

[Michael Kear]

There's a saying in the sales business (/me thinking back all those years to
when I was a sales trainer):Sell them what they want, and all the rest
comes along for free. 

If the customer loves the car's hot stereo, sell them the hot stereo and the
rest of the car comes along for free.

IF the house buyer falls in love with the kitchen, let them have the
kitchen, and the rest of the house comes along for free.

IF they want an accessible site, sell them an accessible site, and the good
design and easy navigation comes along for free.

If they want a web presence, sell them a web presence, and the accessible
design, good layout, easy navigation comes along for free.

SO it's your job when you first meet a prospective client to find out what
it is they want.  And what they need.  (Not necessarily the same things)
Then you sell them that.   When you build it, you build it as well as it's
possible to do, given your cost and time parameters.  Just because the
client wanted this and that and something else, without mentioning standards
compliance, doesn't mean you cant build a site like that.   When you get a
house built, you tell the builder you want this room, that cupboard, this
kind of roof, that kind of bathroom,  but he still builds structural
strength, water proofing, adequate foundations etc in even if you didn't
specify it in your requirements.


And as to cost, I've found that building to standards has REDUCED my time
(and therefore my cost) to build a site.  By forcing discipline on my html
code, and completely separating content and presentation, it's made many
things more simple.   And since the ongoing maintenance of the site is FAR
easier, it's going to make the cost of ownership of a site over the whole
life much lower than it would otherwise have been.It's my opinion that
if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant
sites, then you're doing it all wrong.   Standards compliance should give
you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about
standards yet.

Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 5:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability

[snip]

So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care
about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they
actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually
care if people can use their site?

The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just
doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such
and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or
'accessibility'.
"Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things
like this? How much is that costing me?"

Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility,
my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes
up later, I'm royally stuffed

I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel
the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if
I try to push the point, they are no longer my client

So, how do the rest of you deal with this?


*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Lea de Groot]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:12:44 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote:
> Yeah but are you sure about that?
> Lot's of contradicting statements say otherwise in this thread if I
> understood correctly.
> I guess it's like Mark said "I don't think anyone could give you a 100%
> accurate answer on that".

You're right, with only one case as precedent, not all the details have 
been thrashed out.
(Lets all do the right thing so it never needs testing again! )

> PS. Is that hon for honarable or honey? ;-))

The stories I hear about you? Definitely not Honorable 

Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet 
Web Design, Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine 
Optimisation
Brisbane, Australia
*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Marc Greenstock]

Haha, I love your rant!

It's very true.

The question most asked by a client is "How much does a website cost?", this
reflects immediately on the client as having less than half a clue.

Some (not all) of my clients I have dealt with have this mentality, they
don't have a clue what a website is or does, their only concern is "how
much?" and "when?". To these people I don't mention anything about
accessibility, standards or the like, I have grown to pay attention to my
standards, and always make sure all the site is 100% xhml compliant
regardless if requested by the client or not.

With regards to accessibility on the other hand that is a different story
all together, I am learning it at the moment, trying to apply the content
from design separation method with CSS, and I am progressing quite well.
It's a matter of unlearning everything I knew about layouts with tables and
learning a whole new method. I think that once I am comfortable with
building sites in this manner I will be able to produce sites in the same
time frame as a site with tables for layouts.

To sum this up and try to answer your question, don't tell your client
everything, if their the kind of client who asks "how much?" and "when",
don't tell them about standards and accessibility, just do it anyway. I know
it may take a little longer, but sooner or later it will become trendy to
sue inaccessible websites, and the developers who are savvy with
accessibility and standards will be the ones who come out on top. The
developers who don't care are going to suffer.

Just my two cents ;)

- Original Message - 
From: "Lachlan Hardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability


> What about all the redesigns that I don't get because I insist on at least
> attempting to increase accessibility? What about all the bidding wars I
lose
> because I'm going to take that little bit longer? My clients expect total
> revision of a page according to some obscence specs to take 20 minutes
flat.
> They struggle when I tell them it'll take a few hours or a day (or
> whatever). If I tell them that what they want is inaccessible, they'll
> simply find someone who doesn't care
>
> I don't know what kind of world the rest of you live in, but my clients
are
> NOT interested in the website as a specific form of media that has its own
> rules and regulations. They've never even heard of websites like that.
They
> get a website so they can tell people that they have one. They don't
expect
> anyone to actually use it, and anything which adds to the cost, time or
> hassle of dealing with someone to organise their public statement of
"being
> an important enough business to have a website" is something to be
discarded
> and dismissed
>
> So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care
> about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they
> actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually
> care if people can use their site?
>
> The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just
> doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such
> and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or
> 'accessibility'.
> "Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things
> like this? How much is that costing me?"
>
> Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or
accessibility,
> my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it
comes
> up later, I'm royally stuffed
>
> I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel
> the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and
if
> I try to push the point, they are no longer my client
>
> So, how do the rest of you deal with this?
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Lea de Groot"
>
> > I don't get it - who's ignoring them?
> > You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes
> > that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a
> > way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do
> > that.
> > But I think it would be pretty rare to get something like that.
>
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> *
>


*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Kay Smoljak]

Lachlan,

> So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your 
> clients to care
> about accessibility?

None of our clients, large or small, care or even think about accessibility,
for the most part. That's partly because we don't make them sites with fixed
microfonts or JavaScript or Flash dependency, so it never even comes up.

You mentioned "just doing it" - that's our approach. We don't mention
anything to clients beyond they fact that we strive to make the site
"user-friendly", which I think covers most areas of accessibility. And it's
not standards - it's making the site work in different browsers. It's not
"10% - 15% of users have JavaScript turned off" - it's "10% to 15% of your
customers won't be able to order from your competitor's shopping cart".

The big seller for us is search engines. Everyone these days wants to make
more sales, get more web enquiries, be found more easily. If we did have a
client that wanted something that was going to make their site inaccessible,
long before we pulled them up on accessibility issues we'd be warning them
it would be affecting their Google ranking. That might be a good approach
for you.

Kay.

--
Kay Smoljak
Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation
PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/
Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 

*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Taco Fleur]

> Hon, if your advice is 'make it accessible' and they then 
> don't make it 
> accessible, it wont be *you* at risk, surely :)
> Particularly when you keep your correspondance to show that you *did* 
> tell them to make it accessible, as above :)

Yeah but are you sure about that?
Lot's of contradicting statements say otherwise in this thread if I
understood correctly.
I guess it's like Mark said "I don't think anyone could give you a 100%
accurate answer on that".

PS. Is that hon for honarable or honey? ;-))
PPS. I always keep track of suggestion that were dismissed by the business,
i.e. 

*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Lachlan Hardy]

What about all the redesigns that I don't get because I insist on at least
attempting to increase accessibility? What about all the bidding wars I lose
because I'm going to take that little bit longer? My clients expect total
revision of a page according to some obscence specs to take 20 minutes flat.
They struggle when I tell them it'll take a few hours or a day (or
whatever). If I tell them that what they want is inaccessible, they'll
simply find someone who doesn't care

I don't know what kind of world the rest of you live in, but my clients are
NOT interested in the website as a specific form of media that has its own
rules and regulations. They've never even heard of websites like that. They
get a website so they can tell people that they have one. They don't expect
anyone to actually use it, and anything which adds to the cost, time or
hassle of dealing with someone to organise their public statement of "being
an important enough business to have a website" is something to be discarded
and dismissed

So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care
about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they
actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually
care if people can use their site?

The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just
doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such
and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or
'accessibility'.
"Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things
like this? How much is that costing me?"

Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility,
my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes
up later, I'm royally stuffed

I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel
the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if
I try to push the point, they are no longer my client

So, how do the rest of you deal with this?

- Original Message - 
From: "Lea de Groot"

> I don't get it - who's ignoring them?
> You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes
> that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a
> way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do
> that.
> But I think it would be pretty rare to get something like that.

*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Lea de Groot]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:09:08 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote:
> I am not specifically referring to my work, it can also be advice given
> about work others performed.
> Also, it could be things like "I recommend not to use 8px for font width",
> "I recommend not to use those color schemes, due to the low contrast" but
> the client wants it anyway, etc...

Hon, if your advice is 'make it accessible' and they then don't make it 
accessible, it wont be *you* at risk, surely :)
Particularly when you keep your correspondance to show that you *did* 
tell them to make it accessible, as above :)

Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet 
Web Design, Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine 
Optimisation
Brisbane, Australia
*
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] legal requirements for accessability

[Taco Fleur]

> On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:52:27 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote:
> > Sounds fair, so what would I do in a case where I identified the
> > issues but they are ignored?
> 
> I don't get it - who's ignoring them?
> You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks 
> for changes 
> that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant 
> think of a 
> way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for 
> you to do 
> that.


I am not specifically referring to my work, it can also be advice given
about work others performed.
Also, it could be things like "I recommend not to use 8px for font width",
"I recommend not to use those color schemes, due to the low contrast" but
the client wants it anyway, etc...


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] wsg newbie questions

[Rick Faaberg]

I'm wondering whether these could be considered standards for this list:

- no html emails, only text (I'm tired of resizing fonts and stuff to make
messages readable

- always have some text in the subject field that describes the "subject"

?

Thanks! Great list, otherwise! :-)

Rick

*
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]

[Kay Smoljak]

> "Jeffrey Veen caused a big debate by loudly proclaiming "I 
> don't care about
> accessibility" - and he's right. If you code nice html, you 
> don't need to
> care."
>  
> I would be very hesitant to be quoting this sort of thing, 


Aha! Jeffrey was massively quoted out of context, and so have I been :)

You're missing the bit where I said:
If we code our sites using web standards, we should be safe from lawsuits -
and by "web standards" I mean both valid standard code and also the "spirit"
of standards,  like not relying on JavaScript or Flash to get your message
across, not setting text in images, keeping as much presentation in css as
possible, having good navigation, and resizable text.

:)

Moral of the story: Stay Away From Sweeping Statements

--
Kay Smoljak
Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation
PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/
Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*