- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:31:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: HARRIS Rachel D <rachel.d.harris@co.multnomah.or.us>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well, I try to avoid going "head-to-head" with people, since as I understand it that means the sort of confrontational approach where neither side is intersted in giving ground. But I have, as part of my work in the Authoring Tool Accesibility Guidelines Group, spent time engaging in what I hope is productive dialogue with some of the Publisher Team, among others at Microsoft. So have their own accessibility deaprtment, as I understand things. Part of the reason why the Authoring Tools group is looking for organisations who are publicly prepared to say "we want to buy things that meet the highest possibe conformance to ATAG" is that this provides a lever that can be used by engineering teams who have to negotiate their priorities with marketing departments and various other parts of an organistation. (Or can be used by marketing departments as a lever when etc...) (If anyone from Publisher is reading this, I am happy to come back and look some more at things that can be done, as I am generally to talk to developers of Authoring tools). Cheers Charles McCN On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, HARRIS Rachel D wrote: As I spent hours and hours trying to resolve ADA issues to be able to post a newsletter created by someone in Publisher, I came across this site that added SALT to the wound. http://www.microsoft.com/office/using/weblife/publisherdemo.htm <http://www.microsoft.com/office/using/weblife/publisherdemo.htm> . They are bragging about how easy and wonderful it is, yet they don't even have a simple "alt" tag built in when they turn everything into a text embedded graphic. Please, has anyone gone head to head with the makers of these products? Don't they pay attention to W3c at all? Maybe I am naïve, but I want them to explain their thinking to me and how they will address the very important ADA issues. Thanks for any and all responses as I get ready to write to them directly. Rachel ~*~* ~*~ Rachel Harris, M.S., L.P.C., N.C.C. Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Web Site Coordinator 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd Suite 250. Portland, OR 97214 Phone- (503) 988-6048 Fax-(503) 988-3990 TDD-(503) 248-3561 INTEROFFICE MAIL: B503/Suite 250 Rachel.D.Harris@co.multnomah.or.us http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/ ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ -----Original Message----- From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:23 AM To: ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Animated GIFs and accessibility guidelines in answer to your question of whether or not we can find the skip link, yes. I can click on it but for some reason as with many internal links, using jfw 3.7 and ie5.5sp1 I become disoriented as to where I am on the page when I follow them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ" <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: February 15, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Animated GIFs and accessibility guidelines Animated GIFs shouldn't be a problem, since they can be stopped by any browser that can display them (at least among the major browsers - I'm not sure if this is true for WebTV or other "internet appliances"). On the Bobby site, listing the sponsors wouldn't be appropriate for the ALT text, but would be appropriate for a LONGDESC. The designers may have decided that since the image is a link to detailed information about their sponsors, that wasn't necessary. I'd say it's a judgement call, and an defensible choice. However, running Bobby against that page, in the Priority 1 User Checks it says: "Do you have a descriptive (D) link in addition to LONGDESC?" which - regardless of conformance with the WAI guidelines - suggests that the site doesn't actually implement what the Bobby designers consider to be "best practices." There are several other areas, such as in the extensive use of tables for layout, where the site appears to move away from theoretical ideals. On the other hand, the site seems to work, which to me is by far the most important concern. The WAI guidelines, are, after all, guidelines. They're intended to help people develop accessible sites, but if the focus becomes adherence to every checkpoint, instead of the overall goal of accessibility, they've failed in their purpose. Another question related to that site - they've got a link to skip the navigation stuff and go directly to the content, which is great. The link, however, is a transparent gif, with the ALT text providing the description of how it's to be used. Will screen readers currently in use pick this up properly? >>> Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk> 02/15/01 04:08AM >>> Guideline 7 at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ says "Ensure that moving, blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating objects or pages may be paused or stopped." and "Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages." How does this apply to animated GIFs? Does it apply, for example, to the animated sponsorship ads at, for example, http://www.cast.org/bobby/ I understood that movement on screens could cause screen readers to lose their focus. Does this happen with animated GIFs? If so, is this a concern? Also, while looking at the Bobby page, the alt text for the GIF simply says "Scrolling list of sponsors, without mentioning their names (IBM, Microsoft, etc.). Again does this conform to the WAI guidelines? Like Nick, I don't want to pick on the Bobby site or the CAST staff, but it is a Web site that those with interests in accessibility will look at. Thanks Brian (hoping this isn't an FAQ) -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath BATH BA2 7AY Email: B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Phone: (+44) 1225 323943 -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 18 February 2001 22:31:36 UTC