Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Just out of interest Stuart, do you feel that there is a contrast issue in your article heading text? On my screens the bg grey is quite dark. Cheers James Stuart Sherwood wrote: Thanks John, It took a while but the answer I was looking for came along. Thank you! Your web site is very helpful. I'm wondering how accurate or relevant some of the checks are on something like http://webxact.watchfire.com/ I tested my site and there seems to be many warnings that I can ignore. Try checking my site if you like. www.re-entity.com I'm interested if you agree that some warnings can be ignored. I gather this is what you are talking about when you mention manual checks. I know there are some things that should be changed on my site. I'm currently working on a re-design! Are any of the validation tools: Bobby, Cynthiasays, Watchfire...more respected then the others? Regards, Stuart. ** 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] Accessibility, the possibilities
Stuart Sherwood wrote: Are any of the validation tools: Bobby, Cynthiasays, Watchfire...more respected then the others? Regards, Stuart. You can use any of these, and all of them, but you should combine them with your own knowledge base and common sense. I also use Marc Gueury's HTML Validator(http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/). There's no tool that I trust explicitly, but if you arm yourself with some basic knowledge, then even if a tool has it's short falls or faults, and you are aware of them, you can still use what it renders correctly to assist you. Tabindex: one piece of advice, if you code tabindex, don't use intervals of 1, use something like 10, 20 or even 50; tabindex=10 tabindex=20 tabindex=50 whatever. If you have to go back and change the order or add items, it's a pain in the arse if you have to change every tabindex in the document. Tabs will naturally flow to the next highest value, it doesn't matter if the interval is 10 or 100, whatever, this allows you to insert other items later on, without having to edit the rest of the document. What I usually do is break the document down into sections, and within the section increase at intervals of 10, but when I go to a new section, jump either one hundred or even a few hundred, even a thousand. Gives breathing space... phew. But in general, if the document is well structure, and still reflects that structure when styles are turn off, the tab flow is often the same with or without coding tabindex. If that is the case, why bother coding tabindex (I realise there are exceptions like using an initial tab to set the focus/skip navigation)? --- Geoff ** 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, the possibilities
In my opinion WatchfireXM is a terrible product - it considers perfectly valid things to be problems, has misleading documentation and is not very intuitive. DreamweaverMX has a good but not completely thorough accessibility checking feature. Online tools will only check one page at a time. Grant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Deering Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 5:02 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities Stuart Sherwood wrote: Are any of the validation tools: Bobby, Cynthiasays, Watchfire...more respected then the others? Regards, Stuart. You can use any of these, and all of them, but you should combine them with your own knowledge base and common sense. I also use Marc Gueury's HTML Validator(http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/). There's no tool that I trust explicitly, but if you arm yourself with some basic knowledge, then even if a tool has it's short falls or faults, and you are aware of them, you can still use what it renders correctly to assist you. Tabindex: one piece of advice, if you code tabindex, don't use intervals of 1, use something like 10, 20 or even 50; tabindex=10 tabindex=20 tabindex=50 whatever. If you have to go back and change the order or add items, it's a pain in the arse if you have to change every tabindex in the document. Tabs will naturally flow to the next highest value, it doesn't matter if the interval is 10 or 100, whatever, this allows you to insert other items later on, without having to edit the rest of the document. What I usually do is break the document down into sections, and within the section increase at intervals of 10, but when I go to a new section, jump either one hundred or even a few hundred, even a thousand. Gives breathing space... phew. But in general, if the document is well structure, and still reflects that structure when styles are turn off, the tab flow is often the same with or without coding tabindex. If that is the case, why bother coding tabindex (I realise there are exceptions like using an initial tab to set the focus/skip navigation)? --- Geoff ** 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 **
Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Thank you so much! You just made my life about a million times easier! dp. On 23/08/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Pietersen ...tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML* CSS* WAI* Section 508David,The W3C maintain a useful website that has validators for x/html andcss. http://validator.w3.org/http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/They also have info regarding WIA conformancehttp://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/ Webxact have a testing tool for WAI and Section 508http://webxact.watchfire.com/Bobby is a general accessibility checker http://www.cast.org/bobby/Joe Clark offers a lot of good advice on accessibilityhttp://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/Google for terms like section 508 check and you'llfind more references and tools. --Peter Williams**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
With cache cleared and connected directly to the internet I started to suspect some dns shenanigans. I get Rick and Peter's behaviour from my home box, but from my work machine I see things differently. Try http://69.93.55.164/topics/userscience/accessibility/ Cheers, Damian On 8/22/05 10:18 PM Damian Sweeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I get a 404 for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ Works for me. and a page full of articles for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ 404 Okay, now everybody immediately clear caches and turn off proxy and try again, okay? :-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Damian Sweeney Learning Skills Adviser (online) Language and Learning Skills Unit Instructional Designer, AIRport Project Equity, Language and Learning Programs University of Melbourne 723 Swanston St Parkville 3010 www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/ www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/ airport.unimelb.edu.au/ ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039 This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370. ** 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, the possibilities
Stuart Sherwood wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/checkpoint-list.html I think there are P3 checkpoints that are not covered here that you would need to check manually. Just as a side issue, there is a lot of debate in the accessibility community about the merit of using accesskeys, tabindex, etc. Sometimes there is no clear cut path to take regarding these issues, in some places, accesskeys can cause problems in the way they are implemented by user agents and also how they fit the site design, at the same time they can be of great help in forms on intranets where users are doing a lot of repetitive tasks. Similar debates surround tabindex, sometimes it's best to leave this to the natural flow of tabs managed by the user agent, sometimes not. IMHO, many accessibility practitioners aim for WAI-AA, whilst incorporating the most practical of the WAI-AAA checkpoints to aid accessibility. What I'm talking about here is a basic set of checkpoints one implements for all sites, in such cases, with ROI in mind. My general target is WAI-AA with what I would call the essential AAA checkpoints. Some sites (or clients) warrant all of P3/AAA, which is what is required to certify it as AAA. My 2 cents worth. Regards Geoff ** 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, the possibilities
Might be a propagation thing. Try http://69.93.55.164/ for the new site. Vicki. :-) -- Vicki Berry DistinctiveWeb http://www.distinctiveweb.com.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 **
Staying on topic (was RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities)
Stuart Sherwood wrote: Hi All, If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Stuart, There are also the soft tests - often these deal with areas of cognitive issues, from dyslexia to English as a second or third language, etc. Consider the requirement for appropriate and descriptive ALT text... What is appropriate, and further, who decides? Then there is the whole issue of readability - test such as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score can give you an idea if your content is written in language appropriate for the site's intended audience, but it's hardly an exact science. (http://wats.ca/resources/determiningreadability/1). There are also issues surrounding appropriate use of tables, list types, etc. which require judgment calls. Here, once the appropriate container has been chosen (UL, OL, table?), you must then check to ensure that they have been constructed appropriately - for example does your table have (or even require) a summary? Scope / headers ID, etc.? As for testing tools, in addition to the ones already mentioned, we have collected a number of other gadgets which can be of assistance: http://wats.ca/resources/testingtools/44 Geoff Deering wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/checkpoint-list.html I think there are P3 checkpoints that are not covered here that you would need to check manually. There are in fact checkpoints under all three Priorities which require brain intervention - they simply cannot be tested mechanically. Try running a page through something like Cynthia says (http://www.cynthiasays.com) will quickly show you what needs to be manually checked. Cynthia says also provides a fairly extensive chart of what and how their tests are run (http://www.cynthiasays.com/Standards/CynthiaVersusBobby.htm) Just as a side issue, there is a lot of debate in the accessibility community about the merit of using accesskeys, tabindex, etc. Did somebody say accesskeys? Whoa-boy... Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?: http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19 More reasons why we don't use accesskeys: http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37 Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations: http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38 Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys: http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52 The Future of Accesskeys: http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66 IMHO, many accessibility practitioners aim for WAI-AA, whilst incorporating the most practical of the WAI-AAA checkpoints to aid accessibility. As a general assumption, this is a relatively fair statement. Please remember that the WCAG is now 6 years old (May 1999), and it's showing it's age. Regrettably, some developers must adhere slavishly to the checkpoints - often creating more problems than they are solving, but that is simply due to the fact that the Guidelines were never written to be Standards - but are now serving that role more often than not. If you *do* have the luxury of being flexible, shooting for a WCAG AA+ standing is probably your safest position, but determining that ranking cannot be measured by simple tools alone - a clear and experienced understanding of the issues will always be required. The clear understanding can come from hanging out in forums such as this one, the WAI-IG (http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/), WebAIM (www.webaim.org/gettinghelp/) and GAWDS (the Guild of Accessible Web Developers - http://www.gawds.org/discuss/). Many of the regulars on these lists are only too happy to lend a hand and provide answers, etc. when asked. Experience on the other hand takes time... But it's really worth the wait. HTH JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** 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: Staying on topic (was RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities)
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: There are in fact checkpoints under all three Priorities which require brain intervention - they simply cannot be tested mechanically. Try running a page through something like Cynthia says (http://www.cynthiasays.com) will quickly show you what needs to be manually checked. Cynthia says also provides a fairly extensive chart of what and how their tests are run (http://www.cynthiasays.com/Standards/CynthiaVersusBobby.htm) I'm glad John picked up on this thread and illucidated and expanded on it (and that the JF accesskey parser is working well ;-) ). -- Geoff ** 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: Staying on topic (was RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities)
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: There are in fact checkpoints under all three Priorities which require brain intervention - they simply cannot be tested mechanically. Try running a page through something like Cynthia says (http://www.cynthiasays.com) will quickly show you what needs to be manually checked. Cynthia says also provides a fairly extensive chart of what and how their tests are run (http://www.cynthiasays.com/Standards/CynthiaVersusBobby.htm) I'm glad John picked up on this thread and elucidated and expanded on it (and that the JF accesskey parser is working well ;-) ). -- Geoff ** 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, the possibilities
From: Damian Sweeney Try http://69.93.55.164/topics/userscience/accessibility/ So, there really is a new A List Apart. Hopefully DNS propogation will proceed apace and we can all enjoy the new look and feel :-) -- Peter Williams ** 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, the possibilities
User testing? On 23/08/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.au http://www.waterfallweb.net Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Rockhampton, Queensland, 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] Accessibility, the possibilities
Hi all, Sorry to be a pain, but I am new to this list. Is there a place somewhere that lists the tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe Thanks! dp. On 23/08/05, Jason Foss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User testing?On 23/08/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **--Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.auhttp://www.waterfallweb.netWindows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Hey Dave, Try looking ingoogle 1st ;) . Ben -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 2:29 p.m.To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities Hi all, Sorry to be a pain, but I am new to this list. Is there a place somewhere that lists the tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe Thanks! dp. On 23/08/05, Jason Foss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User testing?On 23/08/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **--Jason Fosshttp://www.almost-anything.com.auhttp://www.waterfallweb.netWindows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
Sorryall, That was meant to be off-list. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ben Wrighton - StraightForwardSent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 2:53 p.m.To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities Hey Dave, Try looking ingoogle 1st ;) . Ben -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 2:29 p.m.To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities Hi all, Sorry to be a pain, but I am new to this list. Is there a place somewhere that lists the tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe Thanks! dp. On 23/08/05, Jason Foss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User testing?On 23/08/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, First, I'd just like to check I understand something correctly. Validation for WAI AAA = WCAG 1.0 Priority 3. Is this correct? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 And I've recently learnt about accessibility checks for: * Colour blindness * Contrast * Flicker/strobe If you pass all these test, does this exhaust all accessibility issues or are there more? Regards, Stuart ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **--Jason Fosshttp://www.almost-anything.com.auhttp://www.waterfallweb.netWindows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] Accessibility, the possibilities
From: David Pietersen ...tools/techniques for doing the below? Ok, we can validate for: * W3C HTML/XHTML * CSS * WAI * Section 508 David, The W3C maintain a useful website that has validators for x/html and css. http://validator.w3.org/ http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ They also have info regarding WIA conformance http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/ Webxact have a testing tool for WAI and Section 508 http://webxact.watchfire.com/ Bobby is a general accessibility checker http://www.cast.org/bobby/ Joe Clark offers a lot of good advice on accessibility http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/ alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ Google for terms like section 508 check and you'll find more references and tools. -- Peter Williams ** 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, the possibilities
Hmm, alistapart is back with a funky new design and structure alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ should be: http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ Damian ** 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, the possibilities
From: Damian Sweeney Hmm, alistapart is back with a funky new design alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ should be: http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ Damian, Your link gave me a 404. I'm really not sure what you are on about. My link works http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ -- Peter Williams ** 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, the possibilities
Well, this is curious. I get a 404 for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ and a page full of articles for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ Can anyone break this deadlock? Damian From: Damian Sweeney Hmm, alistapart is back with a funky new design alistapart has many articles on accesibility http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ should be: http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ Damian, Your link gave me a 404. I'm really not sure what you are on about. My link works http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Damian Sweeney Learning Skills Adviser (online) Language and Learning Skills Unit Instructional Designer, AIRport Project Equity, Language and Learning Programs University of Melbourne 723 Swanston St Parkville 3010 www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/ www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/ airport.unimelb.edu.au/ ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039 This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370. ** 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, the possibilities
On 8/22/05 10:18 PM Damian Sweeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I get a 404 for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/ Works for me. and a page full of articles for http://www.alistapart.com/topics/userscience/accessibility/ 404 Okay, now everybody immediately clear caches and turn off proxy and try again, okay? :-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
