Re: [WSG] Quick Site Check Please
On 2/28/06, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same thing is happening on the PC.I have my nav text set to 1.0em.I have the height of each li set to 1.75em.I wrongly assumed that the li would expand along with the text sincethey both used ems for sizing... i'm a bit of a newb here, but possibly using min-height on the lis would fix the problem? in FF1.5 on windows, when the text size is increased by 3 or more notches, the logoBox and flash divs are getting pushed down and not aligning with the light blue stripe in the background (the background color shows through). really nice visual design overall. maybe someday i'll be that good. :)
[WSG] Flash as background (Was: CSS and Flash)
On 2/24/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: your prob right but what about that flash as a css background someone wasposting about here a while back??this sounds interesting if it is possible. i was just working on something where this would have been useful, but i wasn't on the list when it was talked about. does anyone know about the possibility of using a flash object as a background (if it is even possible/worthwhile)? thanks!
RE: [WSG] JKRowling.com and the militia
Is added accessibility for people with disabilities such a good thing if it reduces accessibility for the majority? Well, I think the issue here is that there is no need to reduce accessibility for others. There would have been many other ways to approach this issue from what I see, which would not have made a significant impact on the pages. First, the splash page, which I see as being there to offer access to different languages, rather than just a choice between accessible/non-accessible. Second, why not load *only* the page that is accessibility enhanced? I've gone through both and there doesn't appear to be a huge difference. In fact, the only difference I could find was that one has a few accessibility options, the other one doesn't. It is showing poor Vision to think that only users with disabilities would benefit from those options. I'm sure there would have been a way to integrate that panel in the design in a way that would be unobtrusive (though as is, it's not really that bad). As for providing a choice to text only version, that could also have been a small text link at the top of the page, before the flash finishes loading. So, yeah, making flash pages accessible is difficult, but not impossible. In this case, you get confronted with many choices before your page loads, which seem to make it less usable for you, but the problem here is not one of accessibility, rather, one of how the designer chose to implement the accessibility of the site. My 2 cents :) 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
some of the big cities have more than 10% of their buses adapted to wheelchairs. Well, that's a good *start*... But... It's still discrimination. How would *you* like being told that you can only take one in ten buses? Here's a bit more about this particular issue http://teriadams.blogspot.com/2006/01/railroaded.html But this is getting somewhat away from the topic of origin. Again, perhaps those of us interested in this debate should take it off 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
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
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] Target sued over non-accessible site
Dennis, thanks for that link, an interesting opinion, and one that flies in the face of several court cases throughout the US (in particular Florida a few years ago) The New York State Attorney General offered a legal opinion that all web site originating within that state are subject to Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act I read that and I thought huh? That can't be right. And reading the page on the link provided, it turns out that statement isn't quite right. The NY State AG said that the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that private web sites be accessible to blind and visually impaired Internet users. Two things of note here: First, it is the ADA that is cited, NOT Section 508 of the US Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 is NOT applicable as the VRA applies soleley to US Federal agencies (and some organisations funded primarely with federal money, such as some universities), it always has, and always will. This is an important distinction, because the ADA does not mention anywhere in its text that it covers access to the internet (It was written pre-1990 and signed on July 26, 1992). Therefore, to state that the ADA applies also to companies doing business over the internet is a point that can be argued. In fact, while it seems logical that it *should* apply, that very argument has been used several times to lose court cases and make bad precedents (I don't have time to dig my archives for references, but if anyone's interested, I'll be pleased to do so). Since the ADA doesn't not mention the internet, it also does not provide compliance guidelines for websites. While it is logical that either WCAG or 508 would be followed, sadly, that's not how the law functions. So we have a law that doesn't technically apply, despite the opinion of one AG, and even if it did apply, there is no compliance schedule to guide people (unlike for physical structures, such as ramps (prescribed gradient of 1:12, or door width of clear opening width of 32, etc). In my opinion, this is a positive statement by an AG, but one that will not accomplish a whole lot. Big splash in a small pond :( Secondly, the AG makes reference to people who are blind and visually impaired using the internet. Which is good. But what about all the *other* disabilities? What about folks with mobility impairments? Those with seizure disorders? Cognitive disabilities? Etc... People with disabilities like that also have accessibility needs. The problem with that statement is that it could be used *against* accessibility. The way precedent works, lawyers and courts look for things that have been said before and use it to build up their cases (or decisions in the case of a court). It is easy to see how an attorney defending a client with a non-accessible website could say something like Yes, but the NY State AG said that the ADA applied to blind user, without mentioning any other disabilities, therefore, the AG's statement cannot be used to support the fact that the ADA applies to all accessibility aspects on the internet. The good thing is, such a statement can't really be used as a legal precedent, but it will certainly influence thinking. Finally, that page speaks about settlements. If you do a bit of research on the web, you'll notice that there are next to NO decisions in court cases against businesses with non accessible court cases. The few that do have decisions are actually *against* accessibility. In fact, I know of only one case that was successfully won by the plaintiff, and this was in Australia not in the US, against the Olympic Committee's website. I would imagine that there *are* more successful cases out there, just haven't heard of them. This does NOT mean that there aren't a lot of companies that are sued, just that the majority will settle out of court. This is good, at least there may be some improvement out of it, but settlements can't be used as legal precendents, which means that actual court cases still have nothing to support the fact that the ADA applies to the internet (the situation may be different in other countries, of course, as the ADA doesn't apply outside the US [yes, I've had people tell me it applied worldwide!!!]) Please note, I'm not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one :) I am, however, a person with a disability who has been doing a lot of grassroot advocacy and work with/around the ADA, and web accessibility, for over a decade now. Cheers, I hope my long mail hasn't bored you to tears 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] Google and HTML5
small may sound presentational because that's what it is in HTML4. But in HTML5 it refers to 'the small print' of a document, which is an entirely different use of text from a standard paragraph. The problem with that is that it *does* sound presentational and that people will just assume that it's the kind of tag to use to make small text, rather than use it in the framework it's intended to be used in. What the WHATWG are doing which I think is clever, is they're reusing existing, meaningless presentational elements where they can. If I remember correctly, i has been re-specified too. Quite the contrary, it's asking for problems. Between people who aren't aware that the specification change, browsers lagging behind, and WYSIWYG editor still using the deprecated elements in their previous meaning, we'll end up with a bigger mess than we find ourselves in now. How long have i and b been deprecated? Why are some editors still using it? Do you *really* think that a re-specification will catch on? Don't' get me wrong, I'm glad to see action on those fronts, but I'm not sure that using existing elements and re-defining them is the brightest approach. YMMV :) 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] Google and HTML5
How long have i and b been deprecated? They're not deprecated. Well, I'll be darned! I've been using em and strong for so long I'd come to believe i and b were deprecated... Thanks Lachlan, for setting me straight. I still won't use them though ;) rantAnd on a side rant, could people who are out of the office go NOMAIL from the list, It's getting VERY tiresome to get all those I'm out of the office mails... /rant Cheers 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] Screen-Print-Wireless
So it seems advantageous serving the same style for print and handheld? Ahhh, no. I wouldn't go that far. Print styles often drop menus entirely, which you need to keep for your handheld. I also tend to drop background images and other superfluous images in print, whereas you may want to use *some* images in your handheld styles (and no, I'm not contradicting myself ;) ) Cheers 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] Screen-Print-Wireless
Any suggestions on creating stylesheets specific to wireless? Well, obviously, declare your css with media=handheld, then style your page accordingly :) Remember that screen sizes are *small*, so fixed widths are a no-go. Use % instead of px. Same for fixed font sizes. Use em rather than px for font sizes, for example. Big images are also a no go. Big file sizes are going to eat up costly bandwidth for the poor wireless user. Big files (pixel wise) are going to force horizontal scrolling. Where possible, reduce de number of images, or eliminate them completely. Eliminate elements that are not completely necessary. People who use their wireless to access a site are not there for the design, they want to find the content quickly, access the content quickly, and be on their merry way. If your site has big menus, you may want to deliver a limited menu for the wireless/mobile/handheld. For example, deliver only top level list items for menus using nested lists. Use links to skip navigation and skip menus right at the top, so people who don't want to scroll down can just jump to it (that's a good practice on any site anyway). Use bold colours, try to keep in the web safe range. While we can get away from using web safe colours anymore for the PC (in most cases), the screen quality of handhelds still leave to be desired, and you're better off keeping within that web safe range. In other words, simplify, simplify, simplify :) Cheers 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] Glossary
Hello Pat, You asked: What would be the best way to create a glossary: a table ? a definition list? something else? Answers.com gives the following definition for glossary: A list of often difficult or specialized words with their definitions, often placed at the back of a book. I think that should answer your question ;) 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] small screen rendering
Am I right in thinking this is an attempt to show what a site looks like on a mobile device or similar? Ayup :) Is it a good guide? etc. Well, yes and no. The problem is that so many of the browsers for handhelds/mobiles aren't rendering content the same way (familiar story). For example, even if you declare a stylesheet for media=handheld, Explorer for the handheld will still use some of the screen stylesheet. This makes it near impossible designing a proper style for handhelds. Good luck 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] small screen rendering
Thankfully, Explorer isn't the only HH browser ;-) Ya, but... If you want your visitors to see the site properly, considering the majority of HH ship with IE, you can't expect them know how to change browsers. They rarely do on their PC to start with, on the HH is even worse ;) Cheers 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] pdf graphics
If you don't have the full version of Acrobat, you're probably SOL... In a case like this, you ought to ask the client again for a USABLE file. If you didn't specify the file formats required in the contract, then you may be in for trouble. I've had a nightmare deal with someone on a project like that a few months back. I wish you luck! 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] Free CSS Editor Recomendations?
I was wondering if the professionals in here can recommend any free CSS Editors TopStyle Lite http://www.bradsoft.com/download/index.asp 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] absolute positioned a not where it should be
Not sure about your layout issue, but you may want to consider changing all those read more links. WCAG 1.0 point#13.1 says: Clearly identify the target of each link. This means someone who uses a screenreader and skips links by tabbing through them will actually have an idea about where the link leads you. PS. it validates.. :) Probably does, but not with all standards ;) Cheers, good luck 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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply
Thanks for the great responses so far :) Marco wrote: Most sites that bear these buttons were actually compliant when they were launched / created. However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. That's a fair enough comment. Thing do change and keeping track of changes can complicate one's life. To me, though, those tags should be used on a per page basis, not sitewide. And one would think that if you make a change to a page on a site, you'll either carry-on your work with ensuring the pages complies, or you'll be able to take the time to remove/modify the button? Dunno. Perhaps I don't live in the real world... :) It has nothing to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and everything with having more inportant things on my mind than making sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'. Yes, there surely is a difference between your attitude and that of people who actually don't have a clue. I'm sure there are many who think they know, but don't know. Heck, we're all humans and can always learn more. :) As to complying to the letter of the law... Well. To me, either you comply, or you don't. Either you're pregnant, or you're not :) Of course, there's always room for interpretation on some standards... Many of the level 3 requirements of WCAG are such. Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences. Where do you stop? How many different language do you need your text translated into, sign language as well? Etc... But still... I'm getting to the point where I feel minor validation errors that don't cause any of the major browsers to break the layout aren't really that important to spend so much attention on. I'd agree with that. In the end, full compliance and validation are not the be all and end all of designing and maintaining a site. That said, if a site doesn't comply, then it shouldn't claim compliance. Georg asks: One question though: are those buttons important enough at any stage? Probably not all that important. It is a matter of pride, I think, in many cases. Perhaps because these standards are not as widely used/supported as they should (and no, I'm NOT wanting to launch the debate about MSIE not rendering to standards...). But for those who do follow them, there should be a certain amount of pride. Displaying that on a page (your own or a client's) is also a way to show the potential client that you know what you're doing, and are (in theory) keeping abreast of the changes in technology that mean a client's site is likely to be (more) future-proof. Paul said: My suggestion is, don't get mad, get helpful. If a website bugs you, write to its developer pointing out its flaws. Yes, I do that on a semi-regular basis. Sometimes it's well received, sometimes I get a virtual kick in the teeth. Most often, I get no response at all... shrug Don't be too quick to judge Oh aye. I tend to live and let live. Sometimes, I must admit, the frustration of working on a site and make sure it complies, only to be faced by sites slapping compliance labels on themselves that don't meet criteria. Not trully a big deal, but frustrating nonetheless. (I don't know about you, but I'm so busy working on my clients' sites that my own suffers from inattention.) grin My own site's so suffering from innatention that it's not even up yet! Thank the gods for word of mouth ;) Cheers, and thanks again for the great exchanges so far. 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 **
[WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply
I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to find more and more. You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You do a quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance, let alone the 1.1 strict they claim! Their css is a mess. And as far as WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A level is mind boggling. Then, there are those sites who actually technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact unusable... This upsets me on several levels. It can only impact negatively on those of us who actually do make sites that comply. If non-compliant sites claim compliance, it dilutes the effect of claiming compliance for those who do comply. But it also reflects on our competence. If so many people who claim compliance have apparently not a clue of what they are doing, how can a potential client be sure that the next guy (you, me) claiming they know what they are doing actually does? Perhaps this is a pointless rant, but it's seriously getting under my skin this week. Thanks for any feedback on this :) 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 **
