E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List

Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)

From: jdrew
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2005 12:51PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
No previous message | Next message →

I am in need of a web based validator for ASP websites. Does anyone
know of such a thing? There are plenty for HTML, but not for ASP.

Joe Drew

----- Original Message -----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:47 pm
Subject: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List

> Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List. You can modify your
> subscription settings by going to http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
> To post to the list, send an e-mail to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2005 12:59PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

jdrew wrote:
> I am in need of a web based validator for ASP websites. Does anyone
> know of such a thing? There are plenty for HTML, but not for ASP.

There's no such thing. ASP is process on the server before it is sent, so
it's impossible to do this via a web-based tool.

What you need to worry about is the HTML that the ASP code spits out.

As for writing valid ASP, your server will tell you if it's not (with plenty
of errors... ;o)

-Darrel

From: jdrew
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2005 1:07PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Well thank you very much Darrel.

Joe Drew
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

----- Original Message -----
From: "darrel.austin"
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List

>
> jdrew wrote:

I am in need of a web based validator for ASP websites. Does anyone
know of such a thing? There are plenty for HTML, but not for ASP.

> There's no such thing. ASP is processed on the server before it is
> sent, so it's impossible to do this via a web-based tool.
>
> What you need to worry about is the HTML that the ASP code spits out.
>
> As for writing valid ASP, your server will tell you if it's not
> (with plenty > of errors... ;o)
>
> -Darrel
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

From: Michael Moore
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2005 3:27PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Actually the web based tools will validate the html code that is created
through asp. The tools that I have used to test sites generated
through asp and php include Bobby, Cynthia Says, and Lift for
accessibility and the W3Cs html and css validators for the html and css
code.

It is important to remember that automated tools can only catch about
25-30% of accessibility problems. For instance they can tell you if an
image has an alt attribute but not whether the text in that attribute is
appropriate, or if a long description (either available through a
visible link, information on the web page, or the much maligned longdesc
attribute is necessary) - that takes a human.

For a really good discussion of the limitations of automated
accessibility testers I recommend Jim Thatcher's web site
"Accessibility, what not to do" http://www.jimthatcher.com/whatnot.htm

Mike

jdrew wrote:
> Well thank you very much Darrel.
>
> Joe Drew
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "darrel.austin"
> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:54 pm
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
>
>
>>jdrew wrote:
>
>
> I am in need of a web based validator for ASP websites. Does anyone
> know of such a thing? There are plenty for HTML, but not for ASP.
>
>
>
>
>>There's no such thing. ASP is processed on the server before it is
>>sent, so it's impossible to do this via a web-based tool.
>>
>>What you need to worry about is the HTML that the ASP code spits out.
>>
>>As for writing valid ASP, your server will tell you if it's not
>>(with plenty > of errors... ;o)
>>
>>-Darrel
>>
>>----
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>>
>>
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>
>

From: jdrew
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2005 6:13PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear Mr. Moore,

Thank you very much for the input. I am aware of the ned for "human
evalaution" relative to accessiblity. I appreciate your help--and the
link.

Joe Drew

----- Original Message -----
From: mmoore
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List

>
> Actually the web based tools will validate the html code that is
> created
> through asp. The tools that I have used to test sites generated
> through asp and php include Bobby, Cynthia Says, and Lift for
> accessibility and the W3Cs html and css validators for the html
> and css
> code.
>
> It is important to remember that automated tools can only catch
> about
> 25-30% of accessibility problems. For instance they can tell you
> if an
> image has an alt attribute but not whether the text in that
> attribute is
> appropriate, or if a long description (either available through a
> visible link, information on the web page, or the much maligned
> longdesc
> attribute is necessary) - that takes a human.
>
> For a really good discussion of the limitations of automated
> accessibility testers I recommend Jim Thatcher's web site
> "Accessibility, what not to do" http://www.jimthatcher.com/whatnot.htm
>
> Mike
>
> jdrew wrote:
> > Well thank you very much Darrel.
> >
> > Joe Drew
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "darrel.austin"
> > Date: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:54 pm
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
> >
> >
> >>jdrew wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am in need of a web based validator for ASP websites. Does anyone
> > know of such a thing? There are plenty for HTML, but not for ASP.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>There's no such thing. ASP is processed on the server before it
> is
> >>sent, so it's impossible to do this via a web-based tool.
> >>
> >>What you need to worry about is the HTML that the ASP code spits
> out.>>
> >>As for writing valid ASP, your server will tell you if it's not
> >>(with plenty > of errors... ;o)
> >>
> >>-Darrel
> >>
> >>----
> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ----
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

From: reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
Date: Thu, Feb 03 2005 9:51AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi all,

What are people's thoughts about printer-friendly pages and ensuring
they are accessible. Would an AT user ever use this feature? What
about automatic spawning of the dialog box, is it a good or bad thing
for this to happen? I'm trying to advise but haven't been able to dig
up any opinions or comments on it.

Thanks in advance.

Kieran.

From: reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
Date: Thu, Feb 03 2005 10:06AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

If you are using CSS then a good article on printing can be found here:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/goingtoprint/

If not you could add CSS hooks into your current Accessible HTML page
to ensure it prints well.

This method ensures your pages are updated and as long as your HTML
page is accessible your fine.

ben

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:50:56 +0000, kieranmobrien
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What are people's thoughts about printer-friendly pages and ensuring
> they are accessible. Would an AT user ever use this feature? What
> about automatic spawning of the dialog box, is it a good or bad thing
> for this to happen? I'm trying to advise but haven't been able to dig
> up any opinions or comments on it.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kieran.
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

From: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type;
Date: Thu, Feb 03 2005 10:21AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello:

I am a screen-reader user, and I often use "print this page" links -- ones
that don't spawn the "print page" dialogue.

Why do I use them? To provide me with a much more screen-reader-friendly
reading experience that lacks ads and other extraneous images and things
that slow down my focus on and ability to skim the article.

I particularly use this feature when reading news articles, and often, I
open the article and immediately search for the word "print."

Is my use case common?

I've no idea.

Best,
Jennifer

From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 2:53AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

I can't tell you whether this is common or not, but I can tell you that I do
it as well, and I have no vision problems.
However this is probably a big pointer AGAINST using print versions - as a
site owner/manager the advertising is important. Allowing the user to 'switch
off' advertising is going to hurt your income - print stylesheets don't.

Mike

>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 6:39AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Message

I personally use <A
href="http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/">Mozilla (for the
email client) and <A
href="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/">Firefox (<A
href="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/">http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/<;FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>) on multiple platforms, with add-ons such as <A
href="https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Linux&category=Miscellaneous&numpg=10&id=10">AdBlock (<A
href="https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Linux&category=Miscellaneous&numpg=10&id=10">https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Linux&category=Miscellaneous&numpg=10&id=10). I wish I had it available at work. Once you begin
reading the site with the extra images turned off and then see the site with
them, you wonder how you were before ever able to read the
articles.
The site owner/manager doesn't need to 'allow' the user. We already
have the tools necessary to switch it off. Most of them can't be detected either
- so the site owner will never know. And before the thread goes into taking food
out of the mouth of babes, I'll ring in with a note that when adverts flash,
pop-up, pop-under, emit bells & whistles, then they are probably trying too
hard. Just an opinion worth the paper it is written on.
To keep the subject on accessibility, I'd say
this is also an example of how the web *standards* allow accessibility to grow
in ways unforeseen by the content creators. Proper HTML coding allows for better
accessibility, as the tools that function and assist us rely on those standards
to be present to manipulate content. Immediate uses (beyond just making me
happy) for the technology includes 1) Removing animation images (gifs, flash,
embedded 'movies') that have extreme flashing or screen changes known to
contribute to epileptic seizures, and 2) Assisting people with learning
disabilities to focus on the information they want to receive. (This is a
concern voiced, but not necessarily addressed by the US Rehabilitation Act,
Section 508).
 
Regards,
Norman-----Original
Message-----From: michael.brockington [<A
href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 4:53 AMTo: WebAIM
Discussion ListSubject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion
ListI can't tell you whether this is common or not, but I can
tell you that I do it as well, and I have no vision problems. However this is
probably a big pointer AGAINST using print versions - as a site owner/manager
the advertising is important. Allowing the user to 'switch off' advertising is
going to hurt your income - print stylesheets don't.Mike>

From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 6:47AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

[mozilla and adblock]

> Once you begin reading the site with
> the extra images turned off and then see the site with them, you wonder
> how you were before ever able to read the articles.

You can also put it on a USB stick, btw :
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portable_firefox/

> The site owner/manager doesn't need to 'allow' the user. We already have
> the tools necessary to switch it off. Most of them can't be detected
> either - so the site owner will never know. And before the thread goes
> into taking food out of the mouth of babes, I'll ring in with a note
> that when adverts flash, pop-up, pop-under, emit bells & whistles, then
> they are probably trying too hard. Just an opinion worth the paper it is
> written on.
>
> To keep the subject on accessibility, I'd say this is also an example of
> how the web *standards* allow accessibility to grow in ways unforeseen
> by the content creators. Proper HTML coding allows for better
> accessibility, as the tools that function and assist us rely on those
> standards to be present to manipulate content. Immediate uses (beyond
> just making me happy) for the technology includes 1) Removing animation
> images (gifs, flash, embedded 'movies') that have extreme flashing or
> screen changes known to contribute to epileptic seizures, and 2)
> Assisting people with learning disabilities to focus on the information
> they want to receive. (This is a concern voiced, but not necessarily
> addressed by the US Rehabilitation Act, Section 508).

Well, this is normally what user style sheets are for.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 8:15AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 10:02AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

Mike,

Thanks for the reality check; my point wasn't on topic to
alternate print versions using style sheets.

My point was that by blocking all the distracting advertising,
removing unwanted/unneeded content from the page, you increase the
usability to people with learning disabilities. Being easily distracted,
including something as common as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), makes
it hard to read the primary content with it interweaved between other
non-relevant content, both text and image based.

And to try to stay on topic, "Would an AT user ever use
printer-friendly pages?" I can say yes. We have people that use
magnification tools that makes it difficult to read DESIRED CONTENT when
other advertising, site navigation, and sizes are used. I am
specifically speaking to something like a CSS print version that is
aligned for printing, removing all but the content and URL information.
This would be both via the computer using a software screen magnifier
and via a giant magnifier (think overhead projector/microfiche like
device) when the content is printed out.

I will note, that considering CSS, this could also be simply
stating that PRINT versions are potentially more accessible than the
regular web page. Noting prevents you from creating a style sheet
tailored for a particular audience, such as screen readers. Just a
thought.

Regards,

Norman

Immediate uses (beyond just
> making me
happy) for the
> technology includes 1) Removing animation images (gifs, flash,
> embedded
'movies') that have
> extreme flashing or screen changes known to contribute to epileptic
seizures, and 2) Assisting
> people with learning disabilities to focus on the information they
> want to
receive. (This is a
> concern voiced, but not necessarily addressed by the US Rehabilitation

> Act,
Section 508).

Must be Friday, 'cause I can't see what point you are trying to make
here. If it in favour of alternate print versions, (as opposed to print
stylesheets) then I think that you have got it wrong.
WCAG 11.4 states: "If, after best efforts, you cannot create an
accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page..." That point
alone goes against the provision of Print Versions. Your refernce to
users with learning impairments is weak as well - if they can't handle
the page as is, how are they supposed to learn to look for a 'Print'
button/icon when they want to get rid of the distracting images etc.?

Mike

From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 10:19AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 11:58AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

> If you want to make your site print nicely then you should primarily
> concentrate on CSS print presentation. (If you then have a simper
> page then
> the print styles should carry over easily.)
>
> Or have I got this all wrong again?

I think the point is that a print-friendly page serves both purposes nicely.

-Darrel

From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 3:27AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 10:51AM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the WebAIM Discussion List
← Previous message | No next message

> My point was that from a usability point of view (as well as
> accessibility)
> there should not be a need for the user to pick and load different
> versions
> according to need, when we already have mechanisms to handle this
> automatically, (even if they are a bit weak on PDA's.)

That's a valid point, but weren't you also the one saying that
print-friendly versions aren't useful for those that need to maintain ad
impressions?

It sounds like you are advocating for a page that accomodates readability,
accessibility, marketability, and visual design all at once. Sometimes
that'd doable, but often times it's not.

Ie, Bob in marketing sold 100,000 ad impressions for the 200px = 200px
animated flash banner. Sam in branding insists that the rainbow colored
masthead be retained on each page. Greg in IA wants to make sure that the
large site navigation bar appears on each page for easy navigation. Mark,
the customer, wants a way to print the page without wasting all of his ink
and paper. Mary, in sales, hate's the flash ads. Chip, a customer, preferes
to read on-screen and doesn't like being distracted with the
ads/banners/navigation.

So, in the real world, sometimes using a 'print friendly' version is the
solution. You can either try and please everyone with one layout (which is
silly) or you can accomodate more specific requests with some functionality
on the page.

> If you want a page that prints well, then style that page so that it
> prints
> well, not a copy that the user has to know and find for himself.

You can do both.

-Darrel