WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Accessibility Forum

for

From: john goldthwaite
Date: Feb 25, 2002 7:07AM

I'm sure Ed Reniker at the General Services
Administration will take your comments to heart. I've
forwarded your thoughtful analysis to Mr. Jack Corley
at ATI who is the project manager providing logistical
support for the project.

If you were unable to read about the project on the
site, here is a summary:

The GSA is funding the Accessibility Forum to provide
a forum for government agencies, companies, software
developers, web developers, disability advocacy groups
and other stakeholders to meet and work out the
methods of implementing the section 508 standards-

- How to make IT interoperable with assistive
technology
- specification of an API for AT - IT interface
- measurement of software and hardware accessiblity
- review of existing tools for validation
- develop proposals for other validation tools




--- John Foliot - bytown internet
< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > 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/
>


__________________________________________________
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/