W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: accessify.com's review of RNIB relaunch

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:53:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306251253.h5PCrS407719@localhost.localdomain>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 25 Jun, Lauke   PH wrote:

> Many of you may already have read this (or similar) reports,
> but nevertheless...
> http://www.accessify.com/archives/2003_06_22_news-archives.asp#105646014644065669

  I hadn't noticed - but I've read Accessify's comments now and find
  that whilst I agree with some of them, *my* initial reaction is one of
  resignation.

  Whilst the RNIB could, clearly, have gone much further in their work
  to get a more accessible *for all* website, they have a fairly narrow
  focus, and probably bad consultants.

  However, Mr. Ian Lloyd is going too far when he claim that they have
  committed crimes by using a table-based layout. Them's spitin' words
  indeed and sent me taking a good, close, look at the critique.

  Accessify, who my mailclient informs me can be reached at 
  accessify%5Binsert@symbol%5Dyahoo.co.uk, also expresses a certain
  degree of sadness because the RNIB site is not graphically pleasing to
  him. Personally I find it quite cute, and fail to see what matters of
  personal taste has to do with accessibility.

  It would be pointless to argue such details as why he believes a h2
  without a h1 to be "structurally incorrect" (as opposed, I hope, to
  "structurally invalid" - which it isn't), or why Mr. Tim Roberts seem
  to think that there are inherent accessibility benefits to using XHTML
  (I've not seen any yet).

  Following the debate on Accessify and other sites reveal a stunning
  degree of interest in validation. For the purpose of ying and yang I
  therefore point the honourable readers to line 51 in
  http://www.accessify.com/styles/common.css as well as lines 8, 11 and
  12 in http://www.accessify.com/styles/style1.css

  Lines 186 and 247 of http://simon.incutio.com/orange.css might also
  be interesting.

  That madeforall.com tries to import CSS files which doesn't exist
  raises my trust in them. Could this be because, as the CSS spec states
  quite clearly: "For CSS style sheets, the base URI is that of the
  style sheet, not that of the source document." - and this doesn't
  change because of a BASE HREF set ?

  A fascinating debate. To quote GuyWeb
  (http://www.guyweb.co.uk/archives/000647.asp):

   "Yet another site to give UK webdesign a bad name."

  (Oh, btw, could anyone tell me why the above can't be validated by the
   CSS validator ? It gives me odd messages such as "Validate your XML
   first".)

  Tell me again why validation is important ?



> A shame really,

  A shame indeed. There is no reason what so ever why the RNIB should
  not have used a HTML 4.01 Strict and CSS 2 design.

  There is alot of people screaming bloody murder over this whilst
  shuffling a variety of recently used blunt instruments under the
  carpet and into the closet.

  To the RNIB, to Accessify, to GuyWeb, to Simon Willison: DO try to
  sweep your own before going out to sweep others.

  This is a bloody disappointing mess all around.

-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 08:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT