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

RE: verifying accessibility

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:28:59 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB5824807@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> From:	Massey, Nancy [SMTP:nmassey@postoffice.dca.net]
> As I review the page, my first thought is I can't read the links on the 
> left hand side because they are too small. I do not have a disability, but
> I am myopic. When I run my mouse over the link hoping that the alt tag
> text 
	[DJW:]  This is real text, not the usual image trick.
	There are no absolute font sizes, so selecting a large font
	in the browser gets rid of most of the problems.  Moreover 
	the layout doesn't break down if you disable font sizes 
	altogether whilst using a large size.  (One exception is
	the "click on the map message", but I didn't see that until
	I'd already tried.)

	I'd say there was no problem from a font size point of 

	Colour contrasts are good.

	Bad points are:

	It's not valid HTML, but the number of errors is small by
	typical web standards.

	Non-standard link colours in the side bar

	No underline on links on side bar, or list of dates.

	No title on image map (the job of title is done by javascript
	manipulation of the status line - I disable javascript).
	It still tool tips on IE.

	Flat HTML.  Everything seems to be done with DIV and SPAN,
	which should be last resorts  (in my view, sidebars are lists
	and should be done with LI).

	The reading order puts the menus before the main text.

	Distracting flashing number on map.

	I didn't spot the "click for details", but that should not be
	necessary, and you should never say "click".  It's an 
	inappropriate fix for removing the underline from the link,
	thus hiding the fact that it is a link.

	Compared with most sites, it looks good to me.
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2000 14:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:57 UTC