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

RE: FrontPage98 & Accessible Output

From: Jamie Fox <jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:28:33 -0500
Message-ID: <01BF665E.275F9E00.jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
To: "'webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net'" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
You are correct, I generally use FP to edit pages and maintain links.  I 
can easily move an entire directory and not have to hand code my links.
I don't use it's features that might kill my code such as publish.  I use 
the relatively simple WS_FTP.  It's got a windows interface and buttons for 
transfers.  It's mighty powerful but still simple.
The buttons are done in PhotoShop.  I used the style that the main 
www.dol.gov page used to try to maintain some of their look and feel even 
though someone else controls and designs it.
I don't have a good answer for what to do with novices and publishing.  I 
think when web production goes to novices you are stuck with a bad product. 
 Good luck.

-Jamie Fox


-----Original Message-----
From:	Bruce Bailey [SMTP:bbailey@clark.net]
Sent:	Friday, January 21, 2000 5:25 PM
To:	Jamie Fox
Cc:	Web Accessibility Initiative
Subject:	RE: FrontPage98 & Accessible Output

Jamie,

Thanks very much for your feedback.

The folks I am trying to train really don't even understand directory
structures.  They keep original documents on floppy disks because, it seems
to them, files are "lost" on the hard drive.

If I tried to teach the person who needs to know FTP command, her eyes 
would
gaze over immediately.  I think I could give her printed rote directions,
but I don't want to even go there.

One reason why FrontPage makes sense for my setting is that eventually our
content will be forced to move (from the perfectly good public domain Linux
machine where it is now) to a Windows NT IIS machine controlled by our
parent agency.  I have been told that they use FrontPage to manage the
firewalls and permissions, and to ensure that pages go through the proper
bureaucratic delays before they are given the routine rubber-stamp seal of
approval.  (I could speak to you of my attempts to get checks for 
"validity"
and "accessibility" introduced into that procedure, but it is best for all
that I not go there.  Let me just say that I am grateful to be outside of
that system for the time being.  Basically, the road blocks are there
because the that management does not trust their workers not to embarrass
them.  That is what the procedure tests for.  These managers are NOT shamed
by invalid or inaccessible code, however.  Let me just say that I am
grateful that I don't work for them in any terribly direct fashion!)

Jamie, I am confused as to what you actually use FrontPage FOR.  I like 
your
site.  It is, as you claim, clean and accessible.  I am guessing you used
FrontPage to create the GIFs used for buttons.  From your description,
though, it sounds like you disabled everything you could, and used more
direct tools for many tasks, including FTP posting of the site.  I think 
the
way you are using FrontPage might be the way *I* might use it, but that
won't work for the person I have to train!

I think it is FrontPage's actions when one uses its "publish" command that 
I
found the most objectionable.  Unfortunately, I think this is one of the
features I need to work!

Thanks again,
Bruce Bailey


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jamie Fox
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:25 AM
> To: 'webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net'
> Cc: ChrisWilson; EileenBonfiglio; megazone@megazone.org; Web
> Accessibility Initiative; KristineBradow; "Charles (Chuck) Oppermann"
> Subject: RE: FrontPage98 & Accessible Output
>
>
> I have done our entire site in FrontPage98 with the patch.  The patch is
> relatively important.
>  http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/programs/dbra/index.html  It seems
> pretty accessible.  All the files in the directory
> http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/programs/dbra/survplan/ use CSS level
> one.
>
> By using the HTML tab in FrontPage the DOCTYPE statement can be
> inserted at
> the beginning of the file without a problem.  I think anything
> before <html
> lang="en"> is ignored.  Notice I declare the language and FP98 doesn't
> mind.
>
> Code in FP98 can be ignored by the browser by using Insert > FrontPage
> component > Comment.  Anything written in the resulting dialog
> box will be
> put between comment tags and ignored.  I use this to get alt tags on
> hotspots on my images.
>
> In general I avoid the use of FP components because our server doesn't
> support them.  Not my decision.  I do use the date revised component
> because it works on every browser I've tested it on.
>
> I don't use the FP wizards, templates navigation bars or the like.
>
> One other thing, I don't use FP to publish.  I FTP directly from my hard
> drive.  It avoids any changes FP tries to make during the publishing
> process.
>
> The site is not perfect as I use some deprecated font face calls but only
> because I'm not allowed to use CSS on the whole site.  I'm not
> fighting it
> because I'm leaving here the 27th.  I have resorted to text only
> pages in a
> couple of places because I wasn't convinced my tables were sufficiently
> accessible  http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/programs/dbra/survplan/.
>
> I haven't used FP200 because they won't buy it for me.  Department of
> Leisure has declared HoTMetaL Pro 4 as their supported editor and won't
> upgrade that either.
> For the two MS people here, I like FrontPage.  I appreciate the speed at
> which a patch for FP98 showed up after I wrote to you about the problems.
>  Maybe it was already in the works but it made me happy
> regardless.  I like
> the ability to hide code from the editor which HoTMetaL 4 didn't
> have.  It
> was HTML 3 or nothing.
>
> -Jamie Fox

Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 11:28:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:47 GMT