E-mail List Archives
Thread: THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
From: Paul Brown
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 3:10AM
Subject: Re: THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
I've been lurking here for a while, but as there were a couple
of items in the last digest that struck a cord with me I
thought it was time to de-lurk... :)
On THs and IDs, my understanding of the limitation of the
latter is that only the most modern screenreaders implement
them, and hence the majority of users with older versions won't
benefit from the ID information. In which case it needs to be
considered whether the table can be simplified to not require
IDs.
On the Sitemorse testing, I'd tend to take that with a pinch of
salt and use Bobby instead -
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
Limited quoting of previous quotes below for some context -
apologies to those like me that read this in digest form...
[snip]
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: need table help
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:47:18 -0700
jbailey wrote:
> If the table works visually and your concern is screen-reader access,
> I would consider using IDs. I don't think this has been suggested,
> which makes me wonder if there some flaw in it.
It *has* been suggested in the very first reply to this thread.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
[snip]
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: UK news
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:42:07 -0700
For info/discussion:
http://www.business2www.com/news-print.html?id=1217547344
Mike
[snip]
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: UK news
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:57:10 -0700
Mmmm...interesting item, and an unfortunate response from some
disability advocates, it would seem.
But I don't seem to be able to test a site using SiteMorse's "QuickTest"
testing tool, and so it's hard to comment at this point. I think I
recall seeing this SiteMorse tester before and balking at the
requirement to register/provide email address for what presents itself
as a free, quick online test. Does anyone have experience actually
using their tools?
Phil.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 7:27AM
Subject: Re: THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
← Previous message | No next message
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.brown [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 21 January 2005 10:15
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
>
> On the Sitemorse testing, I'd tend to take that with a pinch
> of salt and use Bobby instead -
I have heard mutterings about SiteMorse (and others) in the past, but haven't
heard any specifics. Can anyone out there give any examples of where their
testing is too severe, or too trivial?
I always get the feeling with them that they feel they need to have a unique
test (or two) that none of the other tools has, etc, in order to justify
their existance/cost.
In contrast, free tools like Bobby are trying to ensure clean sites, so
appear to be a little more positive. Does anyone else feel the same or are
they really better than everyone else.
The article I quoted seems like a good example of this - they give to quotes
from Patrick Edwards, firstly:
'You asked whether there were legal standards for web site accessibility and
there are not'
Then:
'There are duties under part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995...'
The report implies that these two statements are contradictory, when anyone
can see that they aren't. I think that SiteMorse are trying to frighten
people in to 'doing accessibility', and to confuse people further so that
they can retain their 'expert' status.
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************