- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:25:27 +0100
- To: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <43F088C7.7000809@w3.org>
Forwarding to correct list address... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FW: Accessibility evaluation for "after" template page Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:10:05 +0000 From: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk> Organization: Communis Ltd To: BAD TF <public-wai-eo-badtf-request@w3.org> CC: shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> References: <00a201c6305b$ab81de50$3a1610ac@NILSHP0044> Steven Faulkner wrote: > I have uploaded a zipped version of the comments document as my original > email didn't appear on the mailing list. > > accessibility comments doc. http://www.sf.id.au/badtf/bad-tf-comments.zip Shadi -- I haven't done anything about link and hover colours with the template yet as it's something that needs to come from the graphic designer. Please advise. Now for Steve's comments -- thanks Steve! These made me think harder about providing less hacky, more semantically elegant solutions to the 'is it a background or is it content' image issue. The method I had used (css bg of empty span in a div) was due to our cross-browser constraints, as Mozilla, reasonably, does not like giving heights to empty blocks (same for konqueror-based, I think). I like the idea of margining the h2 element appropriately and placing the image bottom, more semantically elegant for a start, but I have a feeling that this may mess up in Safari... something definitely used to have issues with right and bottom. May be be having a horrible flashback to IE4 or IE5.01 though, so could be wrong, but if someone would have a look at the attached version in Safari 1.1 and 1.2 (and of course anything else handy) I'd be grateful. It's also a bit complicated because the 'C' in a square bullet is actually currently the background of the H2. Putting the C and the photo as the background is no good because increasing the text size will result in text overlapping the image... so I have set the anchor as a block level element and padded the bottom to 4em to allow space for the heading text (and for it to expand). This works on most text sizes, with a slight overlap on Largest in IE6. It is not pixel perfect with the original design though. I haven't tested this on anything beyond IE6 and FF1.5, so please let me know asap if giving problems in anything else. onfocus colour... damn, it's fine in IE6 on my machine (white on dark blue)... oops, thought has tested on others too. That'll teach me to mark-up late at night :-) Have !important-ed the a:focus / a:active rules so should (hopefully) show up as white on dark blue for everything. I have darkened the blue a bit too, just for completeness... Abbreviations. I actually find expanding abbreviations aesthetically annoying when using a screenreader, in cases where the abbreviations are more often used when speaking than their expanded equivalents, and therefore omitted on Mb, PDF etc. (though I usually browse with titles off in JAWS as that is what I find most users doing), but I agree that this does not follow the letter of the guidelines. But as we are doing that, do we need to expand PDF too? I'd argue not, but am happy to be shouted down :) Headers, had tried for some sort of aesthetic equivalence of experience (screen reader vs visual) when considering header structure, hence the v0.3 structure, but as many users just read through all headers rather than by header number (unless you're using Window-eyes, I guess), I am ambivalent about how best to do it. Shifting the position in the code -- too many crossbrowser headaches with absolute positioning, I think. We'd be back to empty placeholder divs before we knew it. I am not keen on putting images as H1 -- seems to me that a site logo is not a page heading, any more than a masthead is a newspaper's main headline. So have gone for <strong> as the best option for the Traffic and Today sections, with H1 kept for the main content headline. Quick menu and left hand menu redundancy. I don't think we can merge them without confusing our message of leaving a site looking the same after applying the accessibility improvements. I haven't' changed this... one for discussion? Link text, quite right, but again we need to discuss the 'leave it looking as you found it' issue. I have changed the 'read more' ones for now as I hated them anyway :-) Other questions: how do we feel about (redundant) links from headings not being underlined or coloured? Contrast right hand side headings with main content news story headings. Regards all Liam -- Liam McGee, Managing Director, Communis Ltd www.communis.co.uk +44 (0)1373 836 476 -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Attachments
- application/x-zip-compressed attachment: after_v_0_4.zip
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 13:25:39 UTC