W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: Template for Accessible Web Page

From: Haileselassie, Antonio O. (HQ-LM020)[InDyne, Inc] <Antonio.O.Haileselassie@nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:52:15 -0500
Message-ID: <B46C6C2E459E7748AA9E7DD048B75DFD4430D8@NDMSEVS37A.ndc.nasa.gov>
To: "Matt Morgan-May" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "M. Urban" <m.urban@trilliumjazz.com>

Matt,

>I don't think the site in question is exemplary of
>modern accessible design practices, and for that reason I've asked that
it
>be updated or removed from the site.

That's good to hear! I was going to take a detailed look at the
templates again. I look forward to (hopefully) the update of that
particular template. I think they are very useful as guides and starters
to help ensure at least some minimum level of accessibility for those
that may not be adept or knowledgeable with it and there aren't many
that provide templates like these.

David,

>Tell that to people with motor control related handicaps.

I agree. There are definitely preferred methods. But, the other methods
don't necessarily prevent access. And, you are of course correct with
the current WCAG 1.0 guideline on scripts, but I don't necessarily agree
with the antiquated guideline. It's too limiting when access can still
often be accomplished using scripting properly. 

And, thanks for noting those issues with that particular site. I'm sure
Marguerite appreciates it as well. :)

Antonio O. HaileSelassie

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Morgan-May [mailto:mattmay@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:15 PM
To: David Dorward; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: M. Urban; Haileselassie, Antonio O. (HQ-LM020)[InDyne, Inc]
Subject: Re: Template for Accessible Web Page

Hi David,

You've outlined a number of issues, some of which I can agree with. One
of
them is a critical flaw. I don't think the site in question is exemplary
of
modern accessible design practices, and for that reason I've asked that
it
be updated or removed from the site.

However, I can't help but notice that your concerns are mostly about
validation, and that your testing tool is the text browser Lynx, and not
any
real-world assistive technology. There's more to it than semantics and
validation, and the templates that I've tested, with the exceptions
noted
below, work fine with assistive technology.

On 3/24/08 11:03 AM, "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote:
> * XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer

[MM] Not an accessibility issue.

> * Transitional (when the differences between Transitional and Strict
> are tiny other that the addition of things which violate WCAG)

[MM] This also has nothing to do with accessibility.

> * No XML prolog (required if not UTF-8) but a claim that it is
> ISO-8859-1

[MM] This is required for standards mode in IE 6.

> * Navigation implemented as a select element ... and dependant on
> JavaScript

[MM] Yes, this is an issue, and I will see that it is resolved.

> * JavaScript commented out. This was encouraged in HTML 4.x to
> protect pre-HTML 3.2. In XML, however, it is an actual comment. This
> causes the document to depend on being served as text/html rather
> then application/xhtml+xml (which the specification says it SHOULD be
> served as).

[MM] Not an issue since, as you mentioned, it doesn't have the XML
prolog,
and is XHTML Transitional.

> * Lack of label elements

[MM] Yes, this is also an issue.

> * Invalid

[MM] Yes, there are some bullets missing alt text, and that shouldn't
be,
though in reality it doesn't affect the overall accessibility. But do
superfluous attributes here and there really make a document
inaccessible?
Be careful of your answer:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdorward.me.uk%2F

> * ASCII art used to separate list items ... no li elements in
> evidence on some lists.

[MM] Now you're really overreaching. A pipe is not "ASCII art". As most
of
us know by now, printable characters between adjacent links were
specified
in WCAG 1 checkpoint 10.5.

> * ALL CAPS used instead of CSS. IIRC, this causes some screen readers
> to spell the word out as an abbreviation.

[MM] Yes, also an issue, but mostly an inconvenience. And in JAWS 8, at
least, it does read correctly.

-
m
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 19:52:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:27 GMT