30 replies to this topic

[idrive]

Out of curiosity, how many of us make an effort to make our pages accessible as per W3C?

I put alt attributes on all images (there is a Dreamweaver extension that makes this a whole lot easier!) and am starting to use Dublin Core meta data since Government of Canada Common Look and Feel is doing this and they are my desired clients *grin*

I make sure that a site works if javascript is turned off and make sure that a site works whether a visitor accepts cookies or not (you'd be surprised at how many big sites don't work without cookies - incredibly rude!).

If a table is used for data, then I use headers, etc....

I find that my designer couldn't give a rats a$$ about accessibility so I have to keep an eye on her work ;-)

Oh ya, I like the idea of an accessibility statement (DragonLady7 - if you are reading you might want to look into this in regard to a post you made on Aug 5) :halo: I use this page to explain that we make an effort to be accessible through the use of the following implementations (...) but welcome all feedback if you, our user, had any difficulty at all with our site.

BTW, don't go looking at my site 'cause it ain't accessible :-) But there is a rebranding in the works which will be kick ass *grin*

[Scottie]

Are you aware of the Bobby Accessibility site?

[mcanerin]

Bobby hates my Flash even though I have proper <noscripts> tags, alternate menus and all sorts of stuff that works perfectly in readers and text only browsers. My site is HTML 4.01 Strict and CSS W3C approved, but I'm not sure I want to give up my freedom to design.

To me, as long as the viewer is getting the same information regardless of their vision or browser, then my job at that point is to try to make the best site I can. I strongly disapprove of "standards" that decide that this or that is not acceptable EVEN IF it has no effect on what the standard is supposed to stand for.

Unless, of course, someone can tell me how to get Bobbly approved without getting rid of Flash and other multimedia. I really do care about accessability, but when a standard restricts my design freedom for no logical reason, I'll just ignore the standard as obsolete or incomplete.

Yes, I'm frustrated! I wouldn't be if I didn't care, but I do...

Ian

[Scottie]

Bobby hates my Flash even though I have proper <noscripts> tags, alternate menus and all sorts of stuff that works perfectly in readers and text only browsers.

Isn't <noembed> the proper tag to use with Flash?

[mcanerin]

YES! and a big fat NO! too....

<noembed> is not W3C Strict compliant. It won't validate if you use it. Worse (in my opinion) most text browsers and other specialty browsers don't like or understand <noembed> but do understand and properly use <noscripts> Try it on lynx quickly and you will see what I mean.

So if you use Flash or anything else embeded, you are breaking the very browsers you were trying to help by using the tag designed for it <begins to froth at mouth> AAAARRGGGHHH!

I haven't tested <noembed> with Bobby because the very browsers that I'm interested in providing Bobby for don't use it anyway.

If I'm misusing Bobby in some way I'd be happy to be helped, but unless I am, or unless everyone decides to make text only websites, I'm not worrying about it right now.

I realize that my frustrations would melt if I didn't like Flash, but that isn't the issue. If Bobby suddenly decided that it didn't like jpgs for some reason, even properly Alt tagged, then I also would not be interested in dropping them either.

I'm open to suggestions...

Ian

[torka]

Out of curiosity, how many of us make an effort to make our pages accessible as per W3C?

Well, I try. A couple of my clients are in the health care field, and one of 'em is Bobby Approved. The other isn't, but I didn't do their site design. I'm making a proposal to them later on this week to upgrade their design to improve accessibility, but I don't know if they have the budget to do the whole schmear in one go.

Most of my other sites are probably accessible, since I don't use scripting for menus, I do put appropriate ALT attributes on all images, validate code, use CSS for formatting, etc.

But I don't usually run everything through Bobby or Cynthia so I couldn't swear that I haven't left something out somewhere.

Which is, one might suggest, slightly hypocritical since I tend to harp on accessibility on many of my forums and discussion lists. One of those "do as I say not as I do" type things...

--Torka

[idrive]

Unless, of course, someone can tell me how to get Bobbly approved without getting rid of Flash and other multimedia. I really do care about accessability, but when a standard restricts my design freedom for no logical reason, I'll just ignore the standard as obsolete or incomplete.

I don't dabble in flash at all and I'm not really up on how to properly insert it into an html document (unlike some here I *hate* Flash - mostly because of the way that the majority use it. I do like the way one of the Honda sites use it to change the appearance of a car online)...but has anyone tried this "new" tag as per HTML 4.01?

<object>This is set to become the do-it-all tag for inserting multimedia into your page, and is supposed to take over from img, ismap, applet, script and any others.

<object data="picture.gif" type="image/gif"></object>

I have a Word document which summarizes new tags, deprecated tags, new attributes, etc. if anyone would like a copy. I think I may have obtained it from W3C but can't say for certain - I think it's a hodge podge of resources.

[deborah2002]

Please forgive me, ya'll--what EXACTLY does the Bobby validator validate? I ran a test on a URL and it came back a mess! Problem is, I don't understand exactly what I was running it for!

Anybody got a very simple way to explain this? Thanks everyone!

deb

Nevermind.....I think I have it......so many ways to validate yourselves, eh?

Edited by deborah2002, 04 September 2003 - 10:32 AM.

[mcanerin]

I just checked and the Macromedia Accesibility area has some interesting information about Flash, Dreamweaver, and so forth.

Apparently some accessibility functions are build into Flash MX, but none of the other versions. I use 5 because it's hard enough staying compatible with older browsers right now. Not to mention the upgrade price.

I'll be doing some thinking about this - I should be able to do it - I just don't know how right now

Ian

[idrive]

Apparently some accessibility functions are build into Flash MX, but none of the other versions.

I attended a seminar last night on the new Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (is that the right order? Too long of a name *grin*) and they briefly mentioned accessibility options in Flash. I can't find much about it on the website but there is a blurb here. The software is due to be shipped during the middle of the month so I am sure that there will be some reviews later this month ;-) Perhaps I will write one on Dreamweaver

[musiccorner]

Hello

I am just getting into this accessability thing as we have visually impared musicians using our site.

I have now come down to re-writing the site totally and doing the OU web application and design course to get a better idea of what to do, being self and host taught.

Thanks for the Bobby site, it has helped a lot.

When I started I downloaded a trial of the JAWS screen reader. It only works for about 5 minutes per re-boot of the machine but it showed up TONS of problems.

Regards
Chris

www.musiccorner.co.uk

[Jill]

Welcome, Chris!

Jill

[HorseCove]

I have a client who has to comply with Section 508 accessibility guidelines so I've been using Bobby and various other tools when working on that site.

In general when I'm working on a page I usually try to keep my pages accessible, but I don't normally check pages for w3c or 508 compliance unless there is a specific need - or requirement. Guess that's why Section 508 became a law.

Check out http://usability.gov...essibility/#508 for a great list of accessibility links.

Edited by HorseCove, 05 September 2003 - 03:54 PM.

[Adrian]

Hi all, Jill, Scottie couldn't resist a topic on Accessibility!

I'm very pleased other people are asking the original question, a lot of people go on about supporting old browsers and the like, but don't make pages accessible. Thereby blocking more potential customers than they are enabling by supporting outdated browsers!

Also, it is part of the UK Discrimination of Disabilites Act that as of about 1995 I think it is, web sites are supposed to make a reasonable effort to be accessible. It effectively the same as companies should do with shops and other buildings, but they have until October 2004 to address it. There has been some confusion over the 'implimentation date', but the Oct 2004 date is only for physical buildings etc... not the Web. The RNIB are currently taking 2 organisations to court over having inaccessible web sites.

Theres a good article on Mezzblue entitled Accessibility: Build it, and They Will Come with excellant reasoning on why you should be accessible, if not already that is!

My site is HTML 4.01 Strict and CSS W3C approved, but I'm not sure I want to give up my freedom to design.

I strongly disapprove of "standards" that decide that this or that is not acceptable EVEN IF it has no effect on what the standard is supposed to stand for.

First off, I'll admit that FLASH is a bit different to most things, though I personally don't know that the W3C should be spending much time on an application that is not open source etc...

I do really disagee with the idea that web standards and accessibility are mutually exclusive to 'freedom of design'

Have you seen the CSS Zen garden? Many very talented graphics designers have taken the exact same HTML markup and produced various CSS files and images to create some very nice looking pages, that all validate!

There is also a discussion going on over at Accessify Forums about Accessible and Attractive sites. One thats come up is Lee Jeans. It can be picked at, but a really good effort has been made at making it accessible. I think you'll agree it doesn't look to bad either. I believe that would be flash in there too? The guy who made it has written a fairly full explanation of the what and the why behind the site as well. Makes for interesting reading.

The comments regarding problems reading the results of a Bobby inspection I can completely understand! The main reason for it, is that a lot of the accessibility checks can't really be done automatically. Accessibility guidlines aren't, unfortunately, a strict set of rules like the Web Standards. Parts of it are more ideas on the kind of thing that is accessible or not. A member over at Accessify Forums, Gez, posted what I thought was a very good helping hand with Understanding Bobby. Not everything, but a good number of things are covered, what they mean and how you address them.

[Jill]

Welcome, Adrian!

Thanks for the great info.



Jill