W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: CSS-P Site Built For Accessibility

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:35:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Joel Sanda <joelsanda@hotmail.com>
cc: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org', w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001080130260.13534-100000@tux.w3.org>

In questionging the necessity of Javascript I was referring to it as a
browser requirement - there seems to be ittle if any functionality provided
by the Javascript that cannot either be replicated by a more widely accesible
method, or is only decorative and therefore need not be replicated.

In fact the rage of screen sizes today is wider than it has been in the past
- there are regularly people operating on a smaller screen than 800x600,
either through hardware restrictions, magnification, only having a partial
window, etc, and there are also a large number of screens that are
significantly larger than 800x600. If it is possible to adjust te layout to a
more flow-based model, that wiill make better use of whatever screen size is

I realise the issue of cross-browser support is problematic. Have you
considered recommending Opera or ICE as alternatives? They provide
javascript, good quality CSS and HTML, etc. (Although as noted above, I am
not sure if Javascript is really a requirement).

Congratulations again on the good work - Keep it up *grin*


Charles McCN

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Joel Sanda wrote:

  Thanks for your response and critique. I hope my responses can explain why 
  we chose to do some things the way we did.
  The JavaScript is necessary to maintain the page layout in Netscape browsers 
  when the window is resized. As we all know, you resize a window in Netscape 
  and the CSS-P is thrown out the window. That JavaScript forces a reload, 
  which restores the CSS-P formatting. It's actually a modification of some 
  JavaScript published by O'Reilly in one of their JavaScript books - there 
  version is buggy in a couple of Netscape 4.x versions, particularly on the 
  Great feedback on the video and audio links. I will make that correction 
  There is no fixed screen size - except that the site is coded for 800x600 
  resolution, so the maximum width of all the page elements is 744 pixels. 
  Coding for an 800x600 screen resolution is about as low as anyone can 
  realistically go today - in my opionion. If you're refferring to the 
  JavaScript, that does not create a fixed window size, only addresses what I 
  mentioned earlier.
  We've had some problems with external style sheets in some versions of 
  Netscape 4.x - which is why this is in the index page. I don't know what the 
  issue is, nor can we faithfully replicate it.
  Finally, much of the source code is due to Netscape. The page was originally 
  coded for IE4.0 and better, then reworked to work in Netscape. This was what 
  we came up with. I suppose we're all stuck with code that isn't as clean as 
  we'd like until Netscape opts to support more of the W3C's HTML4 and CSS2 
  Recommendations. The page was at least 1/2 the size before we added 
  functionality in Netscape.
  Again, thanks for the comments!
  Joel Sanda
  ----Original Message Follows----
  From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
  To: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
  CC: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
  Subject: Re: CSS-P Site Built For Accessibility
  Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:15:33 -0500 (EST)
  5 minute review impressions...
  It is unclear to me why javascript is necesary - I used a text and a graphic
  browser to check it out without a lot of problem except where the links were
  javascript references for a new window. This is not helpful for accessiblity
  in general, and doing it through Javascript is a bad idea in particular.
  Where there are audio/video versions of information it would be helpful to
  provide more details about what they are - for example instead of the 
  code something like
  <p><a href="videofile"><img src="realvideo_icon" alt="welcome message
  (video)"></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="videofile">Welcome message (video)</a></p>
  something like
  <p><a href="videofile" title="Welcome message, real Video version"><img
  src="realvideo_icon" alt="Real Video" title="Real Video Icon"><span
  class="nounderline">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Welcome message (video)</a></p>
  would be nice - provides the fact that it is realvideo (you should also use 
  type attribute in the a element to do this in a machine-readable way) to the
  user, and means tere is one link not two - having to skip through multiple
  redundant links is something worth avoiding if possible - especially with a
  head-switch or similarly slow input system.
  Requiring a fixed screen size is not very helpful and should be avoided -
  people who are using magnified screens (or even just getting the crucial 
  by using a 30 or 40 pt font) are then unable to avoid having the problem of
  scrolling horizontally as well as verticaly, which is a serious hassle.
  For the rollover functions it would be nice to make them work for non-mouse
  users - add an onFocus/onBlur set of triggers.
  In general the text alternatives seem to be done intelligently. It would
  probably have made more sense to use a single external stylesheet. And given
  a regular image-naming schema you could write a short function to find the
  names, and reduce the size of the page source by a substantial amount.
  Charles McCN
  Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
  W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
  On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Joel Sanda wrote:
     I'm a webmaster for eCollege.com - a company that puts schools on the
     Internet with a variety of solutions for online and distance education. 
     have been researching and implementing W3C WAI standards, and have a site 
     would like some feedback on. Our most recent attempt employs CSS 
     for nearly all layout. There are minor exceptions where we had to insert
     simple (no embedded) tables to ensure consistent formatting for both
     Netscape and Microsoft browsers.
     The site is at http://online.luc.edu/, and should comply with all WAI
     Priority 1 Recommendations, with a few minor exceptions. Some of the 
     areas do not yet have text-based versions available, although we do have 
     video and audio version.
     I have used JAWS 3.31 on the site, and it seems to do fairly well with 
     navigation and content. The site also passed Bobby and the W3C's CSS
     Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
     Joel Sanda
     10200 A East Girard Avenue
     Denver, CO 80231
     phone	303.873.7400  ext.3021
     fax    	303.873.7449
     "Educators Working for Educators"
  Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
  W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
  Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2000 01:35:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:07 UTC