RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

I do agree that this doesn't seem like a good practice, but I wonder whether this is an issue with the browser more than the web page.  Of course, if browsers don't do certain things we avoid depending on them, but that doesn't get browsers off the hook entirely.  I wondered if the experience for a keyboard user would be better than for a mouse user, and at least in Firefox when I tab (I haven't tried anything else) the window does scroll to off-screen focusable objects, but not quite enough.  For the links on the far right they aren't brought fully into view, which makes this at least in part a browser issue.

Regarding a failure of 1.4.8, this shouldn't trigger a failure because there is a mechanism available to allow access to the page content, in this case for Firefox it is to turn off support for CSS.  I don't think that it is desirable to rely on users turning off style sheets, but I don't think that this is non-compliant with WCAG 2.0 1.4.8.

AWK

From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Carla De Winter; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Carla,

Correct and that is where we indicate a failure for this also, although for me it happens with 800x600 without zooming.  So from what you are saying 1.4.8 assumes a standard screen resolution and anything less is then considered zooming?   I suppose a standard screen resolution would also need to be defined for different devices based on the technology stack.    I'm trying to think of cases where zooming would act different from a lower resolution to determine if an additional requirement would be needed but I can't think of one.  If anyone knows of any I'd be interesting of hearing about it.

Jonathan

From: Carla De Winter [mailto:carla@accesscapable.com<mailto:carla@accesscapable.com>]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:35 AM
To: 'Jonathan Avila'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: 'Jonathan Hassell'
Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

This touches 1.4.8 Visual presentation, but it not explicitly described:

"Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window."

There is no equivalent in Section 508 and WCAG 1.0

We redefined that as "customizable user interface", and included the fact that the website should remain accessible when font size is increased or screen resolution is lowered. If content is not accessible because of a lacking scrollbar, this fails.

Carla De Winter
AccessCapable


Van: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]<mailto:[mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]>
Verzonden: maandag 20 februari 2012 16:05
Aan: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Hassell
Onderwerp: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Jonathan, one issue with your site that I have noticed is that you have scroll bars turned off by setting scrolling="no" on the main div.  This means that when the page is viewed by people using zoom features in the browser or lower screen resolutions no horizontal scroll bars appear and they cannot access the horizontal content off the right edge of the screen.

This is an issue that I believe is not clearly spelled out in WCAG that needs to be indicated as a failure.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

From: Jonathan Hassell [mailto:jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk>]
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 7:05 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Fw: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Thanks for your comments, David.

Hassell Inclusion is my site, and I take inclusion very seriously.

Accordingly, you'll find that both of the colour combinations you mention meet WCAG-AA rather than having 'almost zero colour contrast'.

However, you're right that the shade of blue I used only met AA for the large text on which it was used on the home page. The contrast could have been better for smaller text used elsewhere. I've darkened the shade accordingly so it passes all WCAG-AA tests at whatever size I use it.

Thanks for pointing this out.

In turn, could I point out that high colour contrast colour-schemes, whilst helping many people with vision impairments, actually hinder a great number of dyslexic people from reading the page.

That's why 'universal design' doesn't work - it's not universally good for everyone, as people with different disabilities have completely contradictory colour preferences.

So it's impossible to please everyone, unless you provide a means of changing the colours on the site.

This is something I'm already looking into, as I already mention on my site's accessibility statement: http://www.hassellinclusion.com/accessibility/

As for 'large areas white on the first two screenfuls' - no-one else has experienced this problem. Could you let me know which browser you're using? (I've tested the pages in Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE 8...)

If you have any other comments on how you think my site could be improved, please email me on jonathan@hassellinclusion.com<mailto:jonathan@hassellinclusion.com>.

Jonathan.


________________________________
From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk<mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk>>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012, 22:32
Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

Carla wrote:

> http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2011/12/accessibility-myths-2011/

Were these examples of how not to write universal pages?

Dark green on grey in the tabs: almost zero colour contrast.

Light green on white in the body text, also a poor colour contrast, but not nearly as bad.

Large areas of white space on the first two screenfuls; I presume it only works in one browser.

Centre justification in the print version - at least they do have a print version and it doesn't go off the edge of the paper.
-- David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.