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

RE: Is this site accessible?

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:44:42 -0500
To: "Chuck Baslock" <cbaslock@kansas.net>, "Dine, Brooke" <Brooke.Dine@mail.house.gov>
Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701bf77cb$9378d7e0$1aac66a7@151877>
Okay, I took a second look.

We need a new word, or at least omnipotent powers to stop others from
abusing OUR term.  We use the term "accessible" to mean "accessible to
persons with disabilities" a la the WAI / WCAG.  It is easy to forget that
the general public doesn't adhere to this "jargon".

I believe the CommArt author is just saying that the page is "usable" or
"available" or "nicely done".  Yes, our use of the word has more semantic
meaning and is better, but so what?

With this kind of complicated page, the easiest way to confirm that it is
NOT accessible is to do a "View Source" and do a search for <Q><img src</Q>.
Sure enough, this turns up ALT free graphics (looks like mostly spacer .GIFs
in this case, but still a P1 violation) and large .GIFs that are probably
part of the menu bars with ALT="" (another P1 violation).

Before anyone takes the "Kynn Challenge" for this home page, I have to point
out that there are thousands (millions?) of commercial web sites that are
just as inaccessible as Victoria's Secret.  Do we have any reason (except
for the non-functional "Text Only" link) to believe that VS is any more
aware of the issue than most?

-- Bruce Bailey


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Baslock [mailto:cbaslock@kansas.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 6:52 PM
> To: Bruce Bailey; Dine, Brooke
> Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative
> Subject: Re: Is this site accessible?
>
> This paragraph is in the commarts review
>
>> Created with HTML and JavaScript the site is completely
>> accessible and the only real problem
>> is that video clips are presented with MS Media Player and it
>> unfortunately doesn't work
>> smoothly on every machine-as a matter of fact it's downright quirky.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
> To: Dine, Brooke <Brooke.Dine@mail.house.gov>
> Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 14:38
> Subject: RE: Is this site accessible?
>
>> It's not accessible, not even the home page.
>>
>> It spoofs Bobby (not deliberately, Bobby is easily confused by
>> JavaScript).  I will try to give more details tomorrow.
>>
>> The "real" URL (that a text browser gets redirected to) is at:
>> http://www.victoriassecret.com/vsc/index.html?ignorecookies
>> Paste that URL into Bobby and you will get MUCH different
>> results than the "false positive" that comes up by default.
>>
>> I don't think Bobby's problems with JavaScript are documented
>> anywhere, but it has come up on this list before.
>>
>> Where does the CommArt article say that Victoria's Secret is accessible?
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2000 10:47:06 GMT

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