E-mail List Archives

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

Thread: RE: Accessibility Forum

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Sun, Feb 24 2002 8:08PM
Subject: RE: Accessibility Forum
No previous message | Next message →

> 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 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: Accessibility Forum
Projects (no, there is no second closing 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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/

From: Holly Marie
Date: Sun, Feb 24 2002 10:33PM
Subject: Re: Accessibility Forum
← Previous message | Next message →

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot - bytown internet"
>
> 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?

> 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.

Before you get too crazy about Validity of HTML or now I should really
be saying XHTML... also note that the W3C and its members hardly
validate for HTML...and they were the ones that put these regulations
into force...

see this piece regarding this topic....quite an interesting discovery.
but not a total surprise.
State of the Validation 2002 { posted on Friday, 22nd of February }
http://homepage.mac.com/marko/20020222.html
"... out of the 506 w3c members, only eighteen have web sites that
validate with the w3c validator as either html or xhtml. 141 members
proudly display sites with definite markup errors; a whopping 342 sites
couldn't be tested at all because of lacking dtd definitions. Sad."

and another here:
On valid HTML { posted on Sunday, 24th of February }
http://homepage.mac.com/marko/

and a good discussion on this Validation topic over at MetaFilter
http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/15007

holly

I like to write XHTML Strict and use only CSS, myself. And I validate my
work and check it for backwards compatibility. So it feels good to be in
a minority, but do it well.

---
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: kynn@idyllmtn.com
Date: Sun, Feb 24 2002 11:04PM
Subject: Re: Accessibility Forum
← Previous message | Next message →

Holly wrote:
> State of the Validation 2002 { posted on Friday, 22nd of February }
> http://homepage.mac.com/marko/20020222.html
> "... out of the 506 w3c members, only eighteen have web sites that
> validate with the w3c validator as either html or xhtml. 141 members
> proudly display sites with definite markup errors; a whopping 342 sites
> couldn't be tested at all because of lacking dtd definitions. Sad."

Grrr, I'll try to get the HWG's web site back into compliance ASAP.
Lack of editing process in the aftermath of the IWA/HWG merger meant
that it got (relatively minorly) out of compliance.

--Kynn

---
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: kynn@idyllmtn.com
Date: Mon, Feb 25 2002 3:00PM
Subject: Validity of W3C member sites (www.hwg.org)
← Previous message | Next message →

I wrote:
> Grrr, I'll try to get the HWG's web site back into compliance ASAP.
> Lack of editing process in the aftermath of the IWA/HWG merger meant
> that it got (relatively minorly) out of compliance.
> --Kynn

Fixed! (And we're now using the right compliance logo on the homepage,
too.) I have emailed the sysadmin to get the right character encoding
line added to the global Apache config file, so that other (older)
pages will continue to validate.

--Kynn, doesn't really run HWG anymore, but pinch hits on occasion

---
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: john goldthwaite
Date: Mon, Feb 25 2002 7:07AM
Subject: RE: Accessibility Forum
← Previous message | No next message

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 ADDRESS 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
> 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: size="4">Accessibility Forum
> Projects (no, there is no second closing
> 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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/