E-mail List Archives
Thread: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Ruth Stillman
Date: Fri, Oct 11 2002 10:52AM
Subject: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
Wired News has launched a new XHTML version of its site that reportedly
meets WAI standards (though they do not specify what level) for accessibility.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,55675,00.html
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Oct 11 2002 1:51PM
Subject: Re: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
It's great to see so many sites taking steps toward accessibility -
especially informative, useful, and educational sites such as
wired.com. I couldn't resist running some reports on the new site and
though they have definitely made progress, their claims fall short. They
don't yet meet WCAG priority 1
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com
nor are they using valid XHTML.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com
It becomes quite clear that with a little education, such sites could
be made accessible AND standards bases. I rarely rant about
inaccessibility of sites, yet when one self-promotes itself behind
a false front of accessibility and standardization, I tend to get a
little irritated. Yet on the other hand, I have to applaude them for
making an effort when so many others cower and hide at the very
mention of standards and access.
If you would like to comment about the wired.com article, send the
author a message at
http://www.wired.com/news/feedback/mail/1,2330,1-145-55675,00.html
Jared Smith
***************
On Friday, October 11, 2002 you sent:
RS> Wired News has launched a new XHTML version of its site that reportedly
RS> meets WAI standards (though they do not specify what level) for accessibility.
RS> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,55675,00.html
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Holly Marie
Date: Fri, Oct 11 2002 2:26PM
Subject: Re: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
From: "Jared Smith"
| It's great to see so many sites taking steps toward accessibility -
| especially informative, useful, and educational sites such as
| wired.com. I couldn't resist running some reports on the new site and
| though they have definitely made progress, their claims fall short.
They
| don't yet meet WCAG priority 1
|
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired
.com
| nor are they using valid XHTML.
| http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com
Unfortunately, links with unescaped characters and a couple of
attributes in ad based links that are fed server side are the only non
validating XHTML. This is often a problem with trying to link up to many
fine resources on the Internet, including news sites, educational sites,
and coroporate or business sites that use those lengthy and often
cumbersome data filled URI/URLs that often will not validate for XHTML.
These ad links may be coming in from a server and being fed into the
page that is hosted on such a server and I suppose we should all not
only be admonishing Advertisers about ads that intrude on content
delivery[like the flashy flash type ones earlier mentioned today in
conjunction with Yahoo!, but we should also be putting these deliveries
and people delivering such items under the light and demanding more
accessible ads if they are to be showing these at all. Geocities,
Yahoo!, and a myriad of others. This includes proper links, proper
Alts, and proper content or words for such links or ads. Though people
accessing these ads hearing click here or no content may actually be
better off than those of us that have to put up with the distractions,
blinking, and annoyingly disruptive display tactics.
So I think simply stating they are not XHTML compliant is easy to say,
but looking closer at the errors or reasons behind the failure to make
100% valid or compliance is indeed in order.
Like those using FP to develop sites, like those not placing a DTD in
the head, some of these sites may be 100% compliant on content, but miss
on some finer points like a Doctype in the head, really only necessary
for validation, in many cases.
| It becomes quite clear that with a little education, such sites could
| be made accessible AND standards bases. I rarely rant about
| inaccessibility of sites, yet when one self-promotes itself behind
| a false front of accessibility and standardization, I tend to get a
| little irritated.
I don't believe they claimed to be 100% accessible but did state that
they are more accessible to visually impaired. Which I do believe is the
case. One can resize the text for view and get the content fine. Other
sites that fix text sizes cannot say the same.
If one reads the other article involved with making this web site into a
redo, one will see there was a lot of education, trial and error into
what was used and how decisions were made to use what was used. I think
this is a good education for many to see. How difficult it can be to
make a site transform in this way, and some of the compromises,
pitfalls, and paths on the way to getting the job done.
An Interview With Douglas Bowman of Wired
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/wired-interview/
Here is one that does not even validate for HTML4,01 transitional,
though they sell their software or place it in other software to make
sure we all do? Now this makes less sense to me. And some of these
errors are purely sloppy markup. Perhaps they should have run their
software on their own site.
http://www.usablenet.com/
Yeah, I am irritated also. But, I am pleased immensely by the strides
and efforts that Wired has made, and unfortunately due to the ads that
get fed in, they do not completely validate for XHTML, but I am sure
they will work on that aspect. Maybe they should pull the ads until the
suppliers can conform? There is another idea.
holly
see more background information regarding the compliance failure also
over at zeldman.com today.
http://www.zeldman.com/daily/1002a.html#wired
I am not sure whether or not the Accessibility issues are directly
linked to the ads, also. I need to look at that valdation more closely.
First reports back by others that have tried the site have said it does
seem to work out and deliver well. And I suppose that matters most.
Sometimes tests fail to include user experience.
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Tom Gilder
Date: Fri, Oct 11 2002 4:29PM
Subject: Re: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Friday, October 11, 2002, 9:27:30 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
> They don't yet meet WCAG priority 1 http://bobby.watchfire.com/...
Please don't use Bobby to ascertain if any site meats a WCAG level.
It'll give you it's best guess if they have or not, but it is by no
means always correct. Bobby can point out suspected errors, but only a
human can decide if a site meats the guidelines.
Personally after a quick look, I think that Wired does pretty much
come up to WCAG level A. It certainly is a hell of a lot more
accessible than it used to be. Bobby flagging alt="" on an invisible
spacer gif as an error is idiotic.
--
Tom Gilder
http://tom.me.uk/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Timothy J. Luoma
Date: Fri, Oct 11 2002 6:24PM
Subject: Re: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
It's now 100% valid XHTML 1.0 transitional
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://wired.com/
Jigsaw CSS validator is down again, but I ran the style sheets through
TopStyle and there are no significant errors there (missing a quote
around font name, and a few missing foreground/background-color
combinations.
I'm sure folks will now start picking on Wired for WCAG/Section 508
stuff, but they achieved 100% validation.
TjL
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Oct 14 2002 2:01PM
Subject: Re[2]: Wired News Redesigned for Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
It was great to see the wired.com homepage go from 18 XHTML
errors, to 10, to 5, and now none at all, though there are
inconsistencies throughout the site - something to be expected when
your dealing with such massive amounts of content and third party
content providers. I can't imagine the complexities of such an
overhaul and in making the change to standardization, wired.com has
earned my kudos and respect.
My initial post was not an attack on Wired's decision or their mostly
insignificant accessibility and XHTML errors - I didn't want to play
the role of the Internet's accessibility police (no Bobby pun
intended). Wired.com stated on each page that they were XHTML 1.0
transitional compliant, something they clearly were not. This
statement has since been removed from the footer of each of their
pages. They did not claim WCAG priority 1 compliance, yet could one
say they are compliant with the W3C's accessibility guidelines and
still have missing ALT text?
I understand the inconsistencies in validation and that most of the
time it doesn't make a heap of difference anyway - to either browser
or screen reader. By beef is in stating compliance when only partial
compliance is attained. Wired.com has, for-the-time, removed such
statements and is clearly making strides toward more complete XHTML
and WCAG 1.0 compliance and will continue to do so with consumer
support and feedback. Unfortunately until content providers and
advertisers get on board, it may be hard or impossible for them to
attain full compliance. They've truly shown themselves as an example
that many others should (and can) follow and I hope such business
decisions soon become the norm and not the exception.
Here's a quick run-down of resources you've graciously provided me on
the subject:
Interviews with Douglas Bowman of Wired
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/wired-interview/
http://www.zeldman.com/daily/1002a.html#wired
Joe's insightful, and ever colorful, commentary on why the 'big boys'
don't play by the rules
http://www.contenu.nu/article.htm?id=1229
Wired.com's explanation of the changes.
http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html
This is a must read for anyone that cares about standards and compliance.
Here's a snippet that conveys my feelings to a tee.
<snip>
In a Perfect World...
We would have loved to keep our site pure and free of work-arounds that
fix obscure rendering issues in specific browsers. We admit that this
is not entirely the case. In a perfect world, our implementation of
Web standards would render flawlessly in every single browser. However,
the fact remains: past browsers were not built for -- or held to -- the
same standards of today's browsers. Even recent browsers thought of as
"standards-compliant" carry slight discrepancies which create
differences in the appearance of our pages. Imperfections are bound to
show up. We've done our best to ensure our site renders as consistently
as possible, despite browser differences. We apologize if the content
is rendered in a way that somehow makes it inaccessible.
</snip>
Yep, in a perfect world, there would be many more caring and innovative
companies like wired.com.
Jared Smith
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)
www.webaim.org
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Patricia Chadwick
Date: Fri, Oct 18 2002 11:50AM
Subject: Accessibility Tester
← Previous message | No next message
I hope this is okay to post here. I'm posting this (with permission)
from another list, so please don't contact me but the emails listed in
the message.
Pat