Re: [WSG] ServerSide Includes and Divs

2006-02-11 Thread Soeren Mordhorst

Helmut Granda schrieb:


I discovered something weird today. When I was creating my layout that 
contains includes for some reason my rules would not work properly 
only if the layout was like this.


-- code starts

Main Layout

div id=’header’

Include ‘header.php’;

/div

div id=’content’

Include ‘content.php’;

/div

div id=’footer’

Include ‘footer’;

/div

--End of Main Layout

--Sample Include

//header.php

div class=’tagline’Blah/div

div class=’logout’Logout/div

-- end of code

BUT! If I did this…

--code starts

Main Layout

Include ‘header.php’;

div id=’content’

Include ‘content.php’;

/div

Include ‘footer’;

---End of Main Layout



If you do it in this way, make sure you defined the div´s in the footer:

*The index.php/main-layout:*
---

require ‘header.php’;

div id=’content’

require ‘content.php’;

/div

/require ‘footer*.php*’;/

---End of Main Layout



*The footer.php:
--
*
div id=footer
?php . ?
/div


Hope to helped you out.

All the best,

Soeren



--Sample Include

//header.php

div id=’header’

div class=’tagline’Blah/div

div class=’logout’Logout/div

/div

--end of code

As you can see as long as I added my “header” wrapper in the 
“header.php” the rules would work fine, but if I didn’t then the rules 
would break. Has anyone experienced this? Is there any specific reason 
why rules would fail with includes?


TIA

...helmut



**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Paul Ross
I saw the Target Sued story over on Cnet (http://tinyurl.com/b3u29).
What was amazing to me was the response from a Mr Troy Gaddis in the
talkback section (bottom of above page under the title This is
Absurd. Here's a highlight:

Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such
things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for
being able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this
is america, and seeing as how they are not owned by the government,
they should have their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who
does web programming or development (I do) knows that complying with
these would be difficult, and in some situations, impssible. Especially
if navigation menu's are written in _javascript_ or Flash...

Regards :: PAUL
SkyRocket Design Co



Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Christian Montoya
On 2/11/06, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I saw the Target Sued story over on Cnet (http://tinyurl.com/b3u29). What
 was amazing to me was the response from a Mr Troy Gaddis in the talkback
 section (bottom of above page under the title This is Absurd. Here's a
 highlight:

  Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such
 things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for being
 able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this is america,
 and seeing as how they are not owned by the government, they should have
 their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who does web programming or
 development (I do) knows that complying with these would be difficult, and
 in some situations, impssible. Especially if navigation menu's are written
 in JavaScript or Flash...

Sounds like he has no idea how simple it is to make a website
accessible. But that's not the big deal here. If you look at all the
comments at Cnet, you'll see that a lot of people agree with Mr.
Gaddis... which brings to light a bigger social problem behind the
fight for accessible websites; a lot of people, at least in the U.S.,
just don't care about making accommodations for people with
disabilities. There isn't any convincing them otherwise, because you
can't make them compassionate; all we can do is hope that the Target
lawsuit inspires a precedent for accessibility so that people like Mr.
Gaddis have no choice but to consider making websites accessible.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Designer

Christian Montoya wrote:


Sounds like he has no idea how simple it is to make a website
accessible. But that's not the big deal here. If you look at all the
comments at Cnet, you'll see that a lot of people agree with Mr.
Gaddis... which brings to light a bigger social problem behind the
fight for accessible websites; a lot of people, at least in the U.S.,
just don't care about making accommodations for people with
disabilities. There isn't any convincing them otherwise, because you
can't make them compassionate; all we can do is hope that the Target
lawsuit inspires a precedent for accessibility so that people like Mr.
Gaddis have no choice but to consider making websites accessible.

I think the reaction against enforced accessibility in cases like this 
is more to do with that word : enforced. It amounts, rightly or wrongly, 
to a violation of one's right to 'do as one chooses'.  The objections 
cited, such as the sarcastic suggestion that we sue the radio because 
the deaf can't hear it, does actually make a valid point and highlights 
the senseless extremes that one could go to.


Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a 
'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually 
identical but more accessible.  Screaming and shouting and making money 
for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging.  The 
answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a 
straight jacket!


Just my 2p's worth.

Bob McClelland
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Nic
 


 Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a
'good idea' 
 to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually identical but
more accessible.  
 Screaming and shouting and making money for lawyers is just fanaticism,
and 
 considerably discouraging.  The answer, like in so many cases, is in
education, 
 not in applying a straight jacket!

Bob, on the surface your point is good.  But in practice, in the real world
out there, it doesn't work :(  Don't get me wrong, I agree with you,
education is a key element, and really should be looked at as part of a
whole package.  That is, it should be *one* of the many steps and tools
used to reach the goal of accessibility.

Having done advocacy for accessibility for over a decade, I can tell you
that there are situations (many more than I wish) where you just *know*
there's no amount of education or being nice that will work.  You have to
try it, but you know that in the end, the *only* thing that the business
will understand is to hit them in the wallet, and hit them hard.

One of the problems here is that the Americans with Disabilities Act is
often perceived as a brick  mortar law.  That is, a law that applies to
building and up to a point, services, which is rather tangible.  In fact,
the ADA is a civil rights law, to ensure access.  If you look at the ADA
under the one light, it's easy to assume that it can't possibly apply to the
internet.  But if you look at it under the right light, it's obvious that it
does (or should in any case).

At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on
another one's right to access services?  Would we even *have* this
discussion if people being refused access to websites were black and the
refusal was because they are black? (note, I'm using black in an
international context, not all blacks are African-American, and not with the
intent to offend).

I'll stop before I go on and on and ramble, this *is* a bit of a pet topic
of mine.  Feel free to contact me in private to continue it if it's not
appropriate to this WSG list :)

Nic

**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Stuart Sherwood



At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on
another one's right to access services?


I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of 
'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is 
destructive to our liberty. The question regarding any so called right 
is: At whose expense?. If there is an answer, you have unmasked why it 
is illegitimate. True rights exist in and of themselves without cost to 
others.


Furthermore, the right to do as one chooses does not allow you to 
violate the rights of others! While I build and advocate accessible web 
sites to the best of my ability, the idea of issuing or advocating force 
against another at no expense to myself makes me fear the future.  I 
believe any such  laws should be rescindered.


Stuart Sherwood
**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Lynne Pope
On 2/12/06, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on
  another one's right to access services?

 I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of
 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is
 destructive to our liberty. The question regarding any so called right
 is: At whose expense?. If there is an answer, you have unmasked why it
 is illegitimate. True rights exist in and of themselves without cost to
 others.


If a site is providing information or services to the public, then the
public have a right to be able to access those services. Providing
access to all of the public does not impinge on the rights of any
other sector of that public.  Accessibility and usability go hand in
hand and improvements made to accessibility generally benefit all
users, not just those with disabilities.

I believe education is the key. Many site owners rely on the advice of
their site designers and don't have a clue what Standards are, let
alone what needs to be done to make a site accessible to the widest
possible audience. Target were advised of the problems with their site
ten months ago and chose not to fix them. The question that really
intrigues me is that of where the responsibility actually lies? With
Target (ultimately), with the Amazon engine that generates their site,
or with the designers of the site themselves?  It is certainly an
interesting case.

Education and asking nicely for fixes doesn't always work. Theodore
Rooselvelt had the right idea, Speak softly and carry a big stick -
unfortunately, as long as the ADA is seen to be a bricks and mortar
law, it will not be a very effective stick.

Lynne Pope
**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Designer wrote:
The objections 
cited, such as the sarcastic suggestion that we sue the radio because 
the deaf can't hear it, does actually make a valid point and highlights 
the senseless extremes that one could go to.


The nature of radio itself is purely the transmission of audio signals. 
Making it accessible to deaf audiences would not be possible unless the 
medium itself was changed beyond recognition.


The web, however, does not require such a fundamental change in the 
medium to be accessible to blind users. On the contrary, the fundamental 
building blocks of the web, HTML markup, have been designed (or at least 
expanded) with accessibility in mind.


I can't speak for US law, but certainly the DDA in the UK has a 
fundamental tenet of reasonable adjustments running through it. Is it 
reasonable to, say, demand from a car manufacturer that their vehicles 
should blind people to drive? No. Is it reasonable to expect a 
multi-million business to make simple changes to their site to allow 
blind visitors to shop on there (also in the light of the fact that, for 
many of those visitors, it's easier to shop online than having to go to 
physical stores)? Well...yes.


Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a 
'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually 
identical but more accessible.


That assumes that fundamentally people are good and do things without 
laws. I could also suggest that it's not right to discriminate against 
different races, religions, etc...but certain people will just ignore 
those suggestions unless there are enforced consequences.


Screaming and shouting and making money 
for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging.  The 
answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a 
straight jacket!


If I understand the issue correctly, Target have already been informed 
about their site's shortcomings previously, and have simply chosen to 
ignore those concerns.


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
**



[WSG] Opera 8.5 css

2006-02-11 Thread Lynne Pope
Hi all,
I have a site that is pretty close to pixel-perfect in IE  Firefox.
However, with Opera 8.5 I have run into problems with the layering of
floats. It seems 8.5 is not recognising 'position:
relative; z-index:n;' in the float layer. Does anyone know if this is
a recognised bug? If it is, could you please direct me to a
workaround?
Thanks.

Lynne
**
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] Opera 8.5 css

2006-02-11 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Lynne Pope wrote:
... It seems 8.5 is not recognising 'position: relative; z-index:n;' 
in the float layer. Does anyone know if this is a recognised bug? If 
it is, could you please direct me to a workaround?


It is a recognized Opera bug - which is fixed in Op9 previews...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_chaos_03.html

No really good fixes around, AFAIK. This is the closest I know of...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_chaos_05.html

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] accessible drill-down into a nested list

2006-02-11 Thread Paul Novitski

I'd like to hear from folks who've used screen-readers:

What are the best ways to drill down into a nested list?

Consider a nested menu that's marked up as an unordered list 
(UL).  Select an item in the top-level menu and the page reloads with 
a second-level menu of items opened up within the selected top-level 
item.  Select a second-level item and the page reloads with a menu of 
third-level items opened up within the selected second-level item.


In a visual menu it's usually sufficient simply to open up these 
sub-menus.  Because the parent menu remains the same, our gaze 
immediately jumps to a new sub-menu that's appeared the screen.  We 
don't have to re-read menu items we've already read, because we can 
tell at a glance what parts of the menu we've already seen and what 
parts are new.


However, it must be a very different experience using a 
screen-reader.  When the page reloads, I assume the screen-reader 
begins reading the menu from the beginning again.  The user would 
have to listen for a new sub-menu, but without really knowing for 
sure whether a new sub-menu had appeared.  If this is the scenario, 
then browsing with a screen-reader must require a great deal of 
patience as you wait through the repetition of the menu each time in 
order to discover the new list of sub-options.


Tell me if this would be a better scenario:  When you select a menu 
item, the page reloads with a set of breadcrumbs that spells out the 
history of selected menu items, such as:


portfolio : music : compositions

After the breadcrumb list comes the current sub-menu, in this example 
a list of compositions.


Somewhere else on the page, perhaps last in the markup, would be the 
full menu including all menu items at each selected level.  A jump 
to navigation link early on the page could get you there quickly.


Please let me know if this scenario would work for you, and if not 
what other menu functionality would best suit the screen-reader 
environment.  If this description isn't clear, let me know and I'll 
prepare a live demo.


Thanks,
Paul

**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Lachlan Hunt

Nic wrote:

At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on
another one's right to access services?  Would we even *have* this
discussion if people being refused access to websites were black and the
refusal was because they are black?


I really don't see the point you are trying to make here.  There is no 
difference between refusing access to someone based on physical/mental 
disability (those that require assistive technology) and someone based 
on their race, culture, religion, etc.  It's unnecessary discrimination 
either way.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


**
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] Target sued over non-accessible site

2006-02-11 Thread Nic
 

  There is no difference between refusing access to someone based on
physical/mental disability 
 and someone based on their race, culture, religion, etc.  It's unnecessary
discrimination either way.

Lachlan, that was, actually, my point.  Only people don't recognise that
refusing access to someone with a disability is the same as refusing access
to someone on the basis of their race, culture, religion, etc.

If we replaced the issues of disabilities with that of, say, race, this
discussion would not happen, because (at least I hope) most people would
recognise the issues as being discrimination.

To draw a paralel with a physical access issue, in the US, in the 60's,
african americans wanted to get to ride at the front of the bus.  In 2005,
people with disabilities can't even get ON the bus.  But transit companies
can throw all kind of excuses at people with disabilities and reasons why
they can't make their system accessible.  If they refused access to their
bus to someone who's black, because he's black, or a mother with a child,
because she has a child, we'd see that as the discrimination it is.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what excuses you wrap around
it.  

And while for some people it's difficult to see the relationship between
that type of discrimination and non-accessible websites, the fact remains,
if you don't provide access, you're discriminating.  And that is, in more
and more countries, against the law

Is that a bit clearer? :)

Nic

**
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] accessible drill-down into a nested list

2006-02-11 Thread Terrence Wood


Paul Novitski wrote:
When the page reloads the screen-reader begins reading the menu from 
the beginning again.

Correct.

The user would have to listen for a new sub-menu, but without really 
knowing for sure whether a new sub-menu had appeared.

Correct.

browsing with a screen-reader must require a great deal of patience as 
you wait through the repetition of the menu each time in order to 
discover the new list of sub-options.

Correct.


the page reloads with a set of breadcrumbs that spells out the history
Essentially you are repeating information already available through the 
browser history, and it still doesn't inform the user that there is a 
new menu if that is your goal. Also, breadcrumbs are most commonly 
links to parent directories in the site hierarchy, so there may be some 
issues here - you might need to test it with real users.



After the breadcrumb list comes the current sub-menu
If you are talking about unnesting the sub-menu then, yes, this is 
good. Some screen readers don't announce the end of a list so the whole 
concept of nesting is lost. See also link at end about structural 
labels.


Somewhere else on the page, perhaps last in the markup, would be the 
full menu including all menu items at each selected level.  A jump to 
navigation link early on the page could get you there quickly.
As a develpoer I prefer a noun form for navigation (e.g. main 
navigation, page content) and drop the verb (e.g. skip to, jump 
to) there are some reports of screen reader users not understanding 
the purpose of skip links and thus ignoring them.



Please let me know if this scenario would work for you
I recommend reading Hudson, Weakley and Miller's work on source order 
and structural labels:

http://www.usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm

kind regards
Terrence wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

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