WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Accessibility Forum

for

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Feb 24, 2002 8:08PM

> Check out the Forum website
> www.accessibilityforum.org.
>
> Please join the Objective measures group, they could
> use your comments on web testing.

Interesting.

1) The page you point to does not validate (nor do any of the other pages I
have viewed at this site), over 50 errors reported using WebValet, or see a
full report at:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http://www.accessibilityfor
um.org/?event03&warnings=yes&input=yes

With the DTD being used here, almost none of the more "advanced" features
will validate:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN"> is essentially HTML 2; even
the size and color attributes of the now deprecated <font> tag were not part
of that spec. And HTML 4.01 has been rock solid since Dec, 1999...

2) With the removal of images the link found in the top black bar becomes
navy blue on back (Link to Accessibility Forum Private Home Page). Hmmm....

3) Declaring the side navigation as a <map> but then not properly
implementing a client side image map may cause functionality problems for
some browsers. Here, I'm just confused... why is there a <map> at all?

4) (http://www.accessibilityforum.org/projects/launching_of_projects.html)
provides this gem: <font face="Arial"><font size="4"><b>Accessibility Forum
Projects</b></font> (no, there is no second closing </font> tag). Setting a
fixed font size is not very accessible; besides, shouldn't this be a <H1>
tag instead?

************************

This is not meant to be a flame, so I will stop. I will presume that all of
the participants are well meaning and they even have some big names there,
including Trace, the US Department of Education and the GSA. So why is it
so hard to get even the basics covered off?

Oh wait, I see it: <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
ARGHHHHHHHHH

The number one issue with developing accessible web sites is to have
properly trained people do the job. IMHO, too often, they rush out and buy
some visual editor (I won't pick on this offender exclusively) and give it
to somebody in the office with a hearty, "Congratulations, you're now in
charge of the web site". It's akin to walking into a grade school with a
chain saw and saying "Congratulations, you're now in charge of getting the
wood"... you get the same scary results.

Do I sound like a snob? To some, probably. But learning basic HTML can be
done in 3 or 4 days, maybe a week to really get the hang of it. It's about
structure, not "looks", and when industry and government wake up to that
simple fact, a major hurdle will be crossed. Craft and talent is to take
those basics and still create something with visual appeal. It angers me to
no end to see sloppy output like this, doubly so because this group's
apparent mission is supposed to be about overcoming these obstacles, not
creating more of the same. I'm not some "text only" ludite here, I like and
appreciate good looking web sites as much as the next, but let's not forget
the basics in all our enthusiasm. Test your pages, validate your code,
think about what *might* happen under different situations. I found all of
the above problems in under 3 minutes... it would take about an hour to fix
the majority of them.

If the "Accessibility Forum" is really serious about this issue, and not
just slapping each other on the backs, than perhaps they'll get their own
shop in order before proposing to speak for and to those of us who are
really interested and concerned about this topic.

John Foliot
www.bytowninternet.com
Ottawa, Ontario

(Oh, and BTW, I'm normally not this grumpy... I can be down right nice
sometimes.)




>
> Date: 24 Feb 2002 13:48:53 -0600
> From: john goldthwaite < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Testing with JFW
>
> I see your point, JAWS is more than the defacto
> standard, many agency DP departments have stated that
> JAWS is the only screenreader what will be supported
> and that's all that is being purchased.
>
> I'll see what can be done at the GSA Accessibility
> Forum to get Freedom Scientific to create a 'testing'
> version of JFW for web designers and software vendors.
> Check out the Forum website
> www.accessibilityforum.org.
>
> Please join the Objective measures group, they could
> use your comments on web testing.
>
> Date: 21 Feb 2002 17:28:17 -0600
> From: "John Foliot - bytown internet"
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: RE: Creative accessible web pages
>
> John,
>
>
> This is not a new argument, and this isn't the forum
> for it anyway. But if you are left with the
> impression that "PC Windows 98, JAWS 4.X" is the
> baseline, well, that's probably because that
> combination comes closest to implementing the W3C
> standards, upon which the governments are relying upon
> to establish a Standard.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> http://sports.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>



---
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/