E-mail List Archives
Thread: design/web standards
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: Donna Breslin
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2003 12:13PM
Subject: design/web standards
No previous message | Next message →
Hello, If this is doubled Im sorry, I wrote it once, and never saw it
so I thought I'd send it again.
I am also confused about a few things maybe someone
could shed some light. All of our pages have to be accessible, so I
run my url through Bobby and it tells me needs repair, Priority 1 user
checks. I run my site thru the jaws reader and it reads it in
Microsoft IE, but doesnt do very well in Netscape.
We have software called Accuverify, I run the url in
that, it tells me we passed.
I'm confused.
What exactly makes me ada compliant & accessible?
We use Javascript throughout our site for variousa pplications, so to
make that accessible we just put <noscript> tags in?
Also what is a standards-compliant browser?
Any help would be appreciated.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant for the use of the intended recipient.
It may contain confidential information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. If you have
received this message in error or believe that you are not the intended
recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, disseminating, distributing
or copying the e-mail. You are also directed to forward this e-mail to:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = and delete it from your system.
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Karl Groves
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2003 12:36PM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Donna -
Accessibility is not the type of thing that can (or should) be judged by any program such as Bobby or Accuverify. These programs are intended as tools to alert you of *potential* problems. They simply cannot accurately determine accessibility and are easy to circumvent. The best approach is to gain an understanding of what accessibility involves and use tools such as Bobby to look for things that may have slipped by you.
The WebAIM site has a good checklist for the Section 508 Guidelines - http://www.webaim.org/standards/508/checklist
Office of Naval Research has one as well - http://www.onr.navy.mil/resources/section_508.htm
National Cancer Institute has a good list of accessibility resources - http://usability.gov/accessibility/
As for the <noscript> issue:
The <noscript> element is intended to serve as an alternative presentation or means to access what is being presented from the client-side scripting. For example: if you use javascript for a fly-out menu or dropdown menu for navigation, you would put an equivalent list of links in your <noscript> element.
Last, you asked about a standards-compliant browser:
A standards-compliant browser is one that adheres to the recommendations presented to the industry from the Web's standards body(s). Semantics aside, this means the Worldwide Web Consortium and their recommendations for HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, and basically all the other cool stuff listed on the left-side menu of their site: http://www.w3.org/
To make a long story short, for a while in the mid-90s, major browser manufacturers did a terrible job of supporting standards. Thankfully, they're now moving toward better support. Unfortunately, the world's #1 browser still has atrocious support for evolving standards, particularly for Cascading Style Sheets.
Karl L. Groves, Certified Master CIW Designer
E-Commerce Manager
NASA Federal Credit Union
500 Prince Georges Blvd.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
301-249-1800 ext.497
Fax: 301-390-4531
Opinions expressed in this e-mail represent only myself and are not in any way to be taken as the words or opinions of my employer.
> I am also confused about a few things maybe someone
> could shed some light. All of our pages have to be accessible, so I
> run my url through Bobby and it tells me needs repair,
> Priority 1 user
> checks. I run my site thru the jaws reader and it reads it in
> Microsoft IE, but doesnt do very well in Netscape.
> We have software called Accuverify, I run the url in
> that, it tells me we passed.
> I'm confused.
> What exactly makes me ada compliant & accessible?
>
> We use Javascript throughout our site for variousa
> pplications, so to
> make that accessible we just put <noscript> tags in?
>
> Also what is a standards-compliant browser?
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2003 1:54PM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
In addition to what Karl has mentioned, I would like to say that Bobby,
although very good, will identify items that it cannot be checked but should
be checked. For example, although Bobby can identify if alt has been used on
every image, it can't check to see if you have used it correctly such as
stating that your photo of your pet dog is a photo of a fish. The report
identifies anything it can check in the code such as the presence or
abscence of alt attributes but it can't verify if you have used them
correctly.
As Karl mentioned, in addition to using a tool such as that, recognize its
limitations and learn about the various methods of meeting accessibility
standards. There are a number of books and websites available and of course
this list (we welcome any questions).
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
From: Randy Pearson
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 10:24AM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
> As for the <noscript> issue:
> The <noscript> element is intended to serve as an alternative
> presentation or means to access what is being presented from
> the client-side scripting. For example: if you use javascript
> for a fly-out menu or dropdown menu for navigation, you would
> put an equivalent list of links in your <noscript> element.
What is the recommended practice when a particular <scrip> tag does not
require any non-JS counterpart at that particular location in the document?
For example when loading an external JS file, calling a JS function etc.
Should you just add an empty <noscript> just to keep accessibility checkers
happy?
<script type="text/javascript">function abc(){...}</script>
<noscript><!-- nothing needed at this location --></noscript>
This is sort of like <table summary="layout"> or <img alt="">.
-- Randy
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Nancy Swenson
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 10:25AM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello,
I am at at work retreat today. I will be back in the office on Monday
and will reply to your e-mail at that time.
Thank you,
Nancy
Nancy Swenson
Instructional Designer
Course Development and Web Services
University of Central Florida
4000 Central Florida Blvd.
Library Rm 107
Orlando, FL 32816-2810
407-823-4270
FAX: 407-823-3511
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: julian.rickards
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 12:39PM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Some accessibility checkers will flag any use of <script> but these programs
really can't know what is performed with the JavaScript. Image rollovers are
simply decorative and despite any flagging by accessibility checkers, no
harm is done by using them (as long as the image tag has an appropriate
alt). There may be other decorative uses or non-essential uses of JavaScript
- again, just igmore these. The problem is when you are using JS to generate
content - if JS is disabled, will a non-JS user get less information than a
JS user? This is where the <noscript> comes into play.
For example, we have a JS jumpmenu on our site. Using the onChange, when a
person selects a location from the list, JS will "jump" the person to that
location. The jumpmenu is a select list in a form. When JS is disabled, the
<noscript> comes into play and a form button appears which then submits the
option to an ASP page which redirects the user to the page selected. In this
way we have accomodated JS users and non-JS users because the functionality
is important. We used to use image rollovers on the navbar but we prefer to
use CSS hover instead but in that case, we wouldn't bother with <noscript>
because even without JavaScript, the link is still present, the original
graphic is still present and as long as the graphic had a valid alt, we
would be fine.
Helps?
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
From: Donna Breslin
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 1:16PM
Subject: Re: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Here is my scenerio, We use javascript throughout our site. I'll
start with the first thing, I have a link to an external site so know
we give a javascript alert letting the user know they are going to
another site & were not responisble for content. when the click ok,
they proceed to other site. If js is turned off- users go no where.
So in the <noscript> tags can I put a <a href> to a regular page which
shows a page that would have our alert. and a hyperlink to follow to
external link. I'm not sure if that would work or not.
What about applications that require users to fill out forms, if I use
javascript for those instances. Is there a way to make that
accessible too?
Any help or thoughts are appreciated.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant for the use of the intended recipient.
It may contain confidential information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. If you have
received this message in error or believe that you are not the intended
recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, disseminating, distributing
or copying the e-mail. You are also directed to forward this e-mail to:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = and delete it from your system.
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 1:43PM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Please, please, please...
Do not create web pages for checkers, create them for people.
As Julian has pointed out, if the js file does nothing but screen tricks,
then telling a non-visual user, or a user or an alternative UA is kinda
silly don't you think? To what good does it do the end user? However, if
it provides important functionality, then, yes, provide the alternative
"method" in a <noscript> tag. Better yet, for a more uniform delivery, can
the "function" that you are providing be done via server side script?
Probably a better all round alternative anyway.
Just my 2 cents worth
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
>
From: julian.rickards
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2003 2:38PM
Subject: RE: design/web standards
← Previous message | No next message
There is a trick identified lately that allows one to use JS in a link that
some have claimed is accessible, I am not convinced that it is but I will
leave that for others to decide. What it does do is support both JS and
non-JS browsers.
<a href="webpage.html" onClick="WebpageInNewWindowFunction('webpage.html');
return false" title="Link opens in new window">Link text</a>
If JS is on, the function will be run. If JS is off, the link will take the
person to the new page. The title attribute will warn people that the link
opens in a new window - however, I understand that JAWS users need to do
something to read the title attribute so the title may not be read each
time.
Now, with regard to JS form validation. Do not depend on it - if JS is off,
then no validation will be performed at the client level and all must be
performed at the server level. This should be pretty clear. The advantage to
client-side validation is that when the form has been validated, then the
server has very little processing to do. The issue with JS validation for me
is that if there is a pop-up window, then there is the possibility of some
JAWS users being confused by the new window. This was discussed recently - a
JAWS user contributed to the list and said that he was not confused by new
windows for links but he did not address JS pop-up alerts or other
non-webpage type windows. Furthermore, another recent survey reported
recently said that a significant number of JAWS users were confused by
pop-up windows - I don't know that many specifics were given for the study
so I can't comment on it.
My feeling is that if accessibility is important to you or your client, then
you should reduce the number of pop-ups that are created.
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690
>