E-mail List Archives
Thread: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Number of posts in this thread: 20 (In chronological order)
From: GF Mueden
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 8:13AM
Subject: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
No previous message | Next message →
i found webaim.org NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THOSE WITH LIMITED VISUAL FIELDS.
NEEDS ABILITY TO BRING IN MARGINS FOR NARROW COLUMN AND HAVE WORD WRAP.
NOT SHOUTING -- BAD EYES.
VISIBILITYMETRICS.COM DOES IT WELL.
GEORGE
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 8:22AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
George-
Could you explain what you mean by "bring in margins for narrow
column"? I assume you mean that as the window resizes that things
adapt to the viewport. We've built responsive design into the new site
design - the reading area adapts to smaller window sizes or larger
text sizes ensuring that line lengths are optimal and that things do
not overlap.
The site you reference - visibilitymetrics.com - on the other hand,
has very long line length and becomes mostly unreadable with
overlapping content and menus when you resize the window to anything
narrower than 1100 pixels.
I'd really like to help, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 8:26AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
On 04/11/2013 15:22, Jared Smith wrote:
> George-
>
> Could you explain what you mean by "bring in margins for narrow
> column"? I assume you mean that as the window resizes that things
> adapt to the viewport. We've built responsive design into the new site
> design - the reading area adapts to smaller window sizes or larger
> text sizes ensuring that line lengths are optimal and that things do
> not overlap.
Possibly the fact that it stops resizing at 630px or thereabouts, and
then just creates horizontal scrollbars?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 8:56AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Possibly the fact that it stops resizing at 630px or thereabouts, and
> then just creates horizontal scrollbars?
I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
This is not quite the introduction I was hoping for, but yes, we've
launched a new WebAIM.org site. Please check it out. I put together a
brief write-up about new features at
http://webaim.org/blog/new-webaim-website/
Jared
From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 9:05AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
I like the new site, for what it¹s worth. Although I didn¹t run it through
WAVE before I looked around. I also probably would have contacted the
owner before announcing it publicly too, but that¹s probably just me.
On 11/4/13 10:56 AM, "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
>> Possibly the fact that it stops resizing at 630px or thereabouts, and
>> then just creates horizontal scrollbars?
>
>I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
>scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
>pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
>
>This is not quite the introduction I was hoping for, but yes, we've
>launched a new WebAIM.org site. Please check it out. I put together a
>brief write-up about new features at
>http://webaim.org/blog/new-webaim-website/
>
>Jared
>>>
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 9:06AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
On 04/11/2013 15:56, Jared Smith wrote:
> I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
> scrollbars. Is it?
I don't either, but George might?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Roger Hudson
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 12:25PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree, I don't think introducing the scrollbar at 630is unreasonable.
And for what it is worth, I think the new site looks great - open and very
clean. One minor quibble is the default font size, which for some reason is
a little small with IE9, but fine with a couple of other browser I regularly
use.
Many thanks to the WebAIM team,
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Smith [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013 2:57 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Possibly the fact that it stops resizing at 630px or thereabouts, and
> then just creates horizontal scrollbars?
I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present scrollbars.
Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750 pixels, so I don't
believe that's the complaint.
This is not quite the introduction I was hoping for, but yes, we've launched
a new WebAIM.org site. Please check it out. I put together a brief write-up
about new features at http://webaim.org/blog/new-webaim-website/
Jared
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 2:55PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared Smith wrote:
> I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
> scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
> pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
>
It is a great looking site, and from that specific point of view, I would
have thought a good improvement as well?
When going responsive though, I would argue for a slightly narrower
minimum-width. It is not black-and-white, but my assumptions are:
- A need to increase size of text by 200%, and for RWD that means zoom.
- Working to a minimum (desktop) resolution of 1024px. Last time I went to
an RNIB training centre there were quite a few 21" screens set at 1024, and
I don't think things have changed that much in practice?
So when you're on a 1024px screen and zoom in 200%, you have an effective
width of 512px. I would suggest that is a useful minimum when considering
desktop usage.
If you are going responsive to improve mobile use (i.e. with a meta
viewport set to device-width), then you would probably allow for 320px as a
minimum with. That isn't something webaim.org is trying to do, but does
help to explain why most RWD sites respond well to zoom.
I currently have my new blog theme in testing on another tab, I'm also
guilty of not doing a re-design since 2006! I'm starting the CSS from
mobile styles and adding layout for larger sizes. A bit more complex to do,
but I hope it will be worth it.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 3:27PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Kudos, Jared. Very nice redesign and I'm enjoying surfing the site.
One problem I'm having is that the very thin typeface used for headings
fades out and becomes difficult to read at certain resolutions.
The text I have the most difficulty with are the headings on the light blue
background: "Accessibility Training," "Technical Assistance," "Accessible
Site Certification," and "Evaluation and Reporting."
Certain letters break up, such as the letters s, e, and c, and become harder
to discern. Slows down reading speed. The size is fine, but a slightly
fatter typeface would help.
-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New Sec. 508 Workshop & EPUBs Tour in 2013 - www.Workshop.Pubcom.com
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 6:25PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen reader
users were told for a very long time that the screen reader needed that
sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think only after jfw 11
did freedom stop telling people that. I do still see people being told
that and even fs tech support sometimes going in and changing users
systems to that as a de falt answer to the text can't read. So the 1024 is
a good guide line for now Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Alastair
Campbell
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:56 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Jared Smith wrote:
> I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
> scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
> pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
>
It is a great looking site, and from that specific point of view, I would
have thought a good improvement as well?
When going responsive though, I would argue for a slightly narrower
minimum-width. It is not black-and-white, but my assumptions are:
- A need to increase size of text by 200%, and for RWD that means zoom.
- Working to a minimum (desktop) resolution of 1024px. Last time I went to
an RNIB training centre there were quite a few 21" screens set at 1024,
and
I don't think things have changed that much in practice?
So when you're on a 1024px screen and zoom in 200%, you have an effective
width of 512px. I would suggest that is a useful minimum when considering
desktop usage.
If you are going responsive to improve mobile use (i.e. with a meta
viewport set to device-width), then you would probably allow for 320px as
a
minimum with. That isn't something webaim.org is trying to do, but does
help to explain why most RWD sites respond well to zoom.
I currently have my new blog theme in testing on another tab, I'm also
guilty of not doing a re-design since 2006! I'm starting the CSS from
mobile styles and adding layout for larger sizes. A bit more complex to
do,
but I hope it will be worth it.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 04 2013 6:48PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you all for the great feedback. It is all being considered. I've
already bumped up the thickness of the heading font that was in
question.
Jared
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 4:00AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Lucy Greco wrote:
> Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen reader
> users were told for a very long time that the screen reader needed that
> sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think only after jfw 11
> did freedom stop telling people that.
I think it is also where people with limited vision might buy a big monitor
and reduce the resolution. It's difficult to tell how prevalent that is,
but I come across a few people who know enough to do that, rather than
fiddle with more complex system settings (that probably don't work as well).
-Alastair
From: Scott Williams
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 5:50AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Nice redesign. This is a super resource, and I'm grateful to be able to
steer folks at U-Michigan your way for detailed information. I also really
appreciate how well maintained the site is.
Thanks, Jared!
Scott
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Lucy Greco wrote:
>
> > Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen reader
> > users were told for a very long time that the screen reader needed that
> > sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think only after jfw 11
> > did freedom stop telling people that.
>
>
> I think it is also where people with limited vision might buy a big monitor
> and reduce the resolution. It's difficult to tell how prevalent that is,
> but I come across a few people who know enough to do that, rather than
> fiddle with more complex system settings (that probably don't work as
> well).
>
> -Alastair
> > > >
--
Scott Williams
Web Accessibility Coordinator
Office for Institutional Equity
University of Michigan
734.764.0051
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 8:01AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
WebAIM has been my teacher and connection to our community for many years. Count me in a one of you many many devotees.......:-)
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)
Compliance Solutions Specialist
Cell: 703-371-5545 | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Washington DC Office in Arlington, VA | Direct: 703-596-8054 | Office: 703-884-9162, Ext# 7446 | Fax: 703-634-5417
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Scott Williams
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:50 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Nice redesign. This is a super resource, and I'm grateful to be able to steer folks at U-Michigan your way for detailed information. I also really appreciate how well maintained the site is.
Thanks, Jared!
Scott
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Lucy Greco wrote:
>
> > Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen
> > reader users were told for a very long time that the screen reader
> > needed that sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think
> > only after jfw 11 did freedom stop telling people that.
>
>
> I think it is also where people with limited vision might buy a big
> monitor and reduce the resolution. It's difficult to tell how
> prevalent that is, but I come across a few people who know enough to
> do that, rather than fiddle with more complex system settings (that
> probably don't work as well).
>
> -Alastair
> > > list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
--
Scott Williams
Web Accessibility Coordinator
Office for Institutional Equity
University of Michigan
734.764.0051
From: Greg Gamble
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 8:45AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Font selection is much easier to read now.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:49 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Thank you all for the great feedback. It is all being considered. I've already bumped up the thickness of the heading font that was in question.
Jared
From: Greg Gamble
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 8:48AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Noob question ... why would a screen reader need a particular screen size?
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lucy Greco
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:26 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen reader users were told for a very long time that the screen reader needed that sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think only after jfw 11 did freedom stop telling people that. I do still see people being told that and even fs tech support sometimes going in and changing users systems to that as a de falt answer to the text can't read. So the 1024 is
a good guide line for now Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Alastair Campbell
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:56 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Jared Smith wrote:
> I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
> scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
> pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
>
It is a great looking site, and from that specific point of view, I would have thought a good improvement as well?
When going responsive though, I would argue for a slightly narrower minimum-width. It is not black-and-white, but my assumptions are:
- A need to increase size of text by 200%, and for RWD that means zoom.
- Working to a minimum (desktop) resolution of 1024px. Last time I went to an RNIB training centre there were quite a few 21" screens set at 1024, and I don't think things have changed that much in practice?
So when you're on a 1024px screen and zoom in 200%, you have an effective width of 512px. I would suggest that is a useful minimum when considering desktop usage.
If you are going responsive to improve mobile use (i.e. with a meta viewport set to device-width), then you would probably allow for 320px as a minimum with. That isn't something webaim.org is trying to do, but does help to explain why most RWD sites respond well to zoom.
I currently have my new blog theme in testing on another tab, I'm also guilty of not doing a re-design since 2006! I'm starting the CSS from mobile styles and adding layout for larger sizes. A bit more complex to do, but I hope it will be worth it.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 10:57AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
It's a question I always asked myself and the only answer I ever found is
that screen readers are badly implemented hacks. They work on recognizing
specific parts of the screen and only recognize it if the expected
parameters are there. It does not seem to be a restriction any more but I
am not sure they still do make users change it when things go wrong. For
example I have a user they keep doing it to that is low vision and uses
jaws and magic and he keeps losing access to the message list in outlook
when they change him to the 1024 he can read the messages but he likes a
hire resolution and changes it back and on and on smile
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Greg Gamble
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:49 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Noob question ... why would a screen reader need a particular screen size?
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lucy Greco
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:26 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Just as a quick note about the 1024 screen size many older screen reader
users were told for a very long time that the screen reader needed that
sizing and to never ever go over that sizing. I think only after jfw 11
did freedom stop telling people that. I do still see people being told
that and even fs tech support sometimes going in and changing users
systems to that as a de falt answer to the text can't read. So the 1024 is
a good guide line for now Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Alastair
Campbell
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:56 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Jared Smith wrote:
> I don't think 630px is an unreasonable width at which to present
> scrollbars. Is it? Our previous site design did so at around 750
> pixels, so I don't believe that's the complaint.
>
It is a great looking site, and from that specific point of view, I would
have thought a good improvement as well?
When going responsive though, I would argue for a slightly narrower
minimum-width. It is not black-and-white, but my assumptions are:
- A need to increase size of text by 200%, and for RWD that means zoom.
- Working to a minimum (desktop) resolution of 1024px. Last time I went to
an RNIB training centre there were quite a few 21" screens set at 1024,
and I don't think things have changed that much in practice?
So when you're on a 1024px screen and zoom in 200%, you have an effective
width of 512px. I would suggest that is a useful minimum when considering
desktop usage.
If you are going responsive to improve mobile use (i.e. with a meta
viewport set to device-width), then you would probably allow for 320px as
a minimum with. That isn't something webaim.org is trying to do, but does
help to explain why most RWD sites respond well to zoom.
I currently have my new blog theme in testing on another tab, I'm also
guilty of not doing a re-design since 2006! I'm starting the CSS from
mobile styles and adding layout for larger sizes. A bit more complex to
do, but I hope it will be worth it.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: John E Brandt
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 11:36AM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you, Jared.
The skinny fonts with lots of gray and white background - a la Sir Jony -
seem to be all the rage these days. For whatever reason, my five year old HP
system with Win 7 doesn't like the skinny fonts (my MacBookPro does fine
with them). I've played with the Windows ClearType setting many times - to
no avail. I was starting to think it was just me and my
no-longer-20-year-old eyeballs. So perhaps I need to only use Mac OS from
now on...? he he.
Seriously, the font change improves my view immensely.
~j
John E. Brandt
jebswebs: accessible and universal web design,
development and consultation
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
@jebswebs
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:49 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Thank you all for the great feedback. It is all being considered. I've
already bumped up the thickness of the heading font that was in question.
Jared
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 1:06PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | Next message →
Agreed--much nicer, and a testament to the power of CSS. <smile>
Jane Vincent, University of Michigan
From: John E Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Thank you, Jared.
The skinny fonts with lots of gray and white background - a la Sir Jony -
seem to be all the rage these days. For whatever reason, my five year old HP
system with Win 7 doesn't like the skinny fonts (my MacBookPro does fine
with them). I've played with the Windows ClearType setting many times - to
no avail. I was starting to think it was just me and my
no-longer-20-year-old eyeballs. So perhaps I need to only use Mac OS from
now on...? he he.
Seriously, the font change improves my view immensely.
~j
John E. Brandt
jebswebs: accessible and universal web design,
development and consultation
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
@jebswebs
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:49 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Thank you all for the great feedback. It is all being considered. I've
already bumped up the thickness of the heading font that was in question.
Jared
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Nov 05 2013 1:29PM
Subject: Re: SITE ACCESSIBILITY
← Previous message | No next message
J. B-Vincent wrote:
> Agreed--much nicer, and a testament to the power of CSS. <smile>
Indeed. I changed one number. It took maybe 20 seconds.
Interestingly, before the recent change, the heading font was almost
exactly the same character thickness/weight as the standard body text.
In other words, the characters were certainly narrow for a heading,
but were actually no more narrow than the much smaller body text
characters found elsewhere.
Certainly if folks cannot read a large heading in a relatively narrow
font weight, they could not possibly read much smaller body text that
shares the exact same font weight, right?
As such, I suspect the complaints about the heading font weight have
been more about the preconceived (and, I would propose, false) notion
that narrow font weights are just always evil (regardless of how big
they are) than they were about actual readability. Regardless, the
heavier font weight is a welcome improvement.
Jared