bobby approved?

[mark | r]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

mark

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

And your question is?


Matthias

 

[mark | r]

And your question is?

do these online validation errors matter? could i still be justified in
proclaiming AA approval as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
functionality of the design?

mark

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

do these online validation errors matter?

No, but the inaccessability matters. Ignore Bobby. Or, at most, when you
understand accessibility well, use Bobby as a coarse tool to check a few
things at times.

Bobby is not just grossly overrated; it is seriously misleading, see e.g.
the problems descibed at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html

could i still be justified in
proclaiming AA approval

Of course not. You are not justified in claiming conformance to some
criteria if you don't actually conform to them (there's an ugly word for
such claims), no matter what we think about the criteria themselves. The
same applies to claiming conformance to "approval" by a particular
program, even when that program misleadingly describes its "approval" in
terms that make people believe that it coincides with the WAI criteria.

as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
functionality of the design?

The alerts do not affect the functionality the least.

Some of them may _reveal_ some problems in the functionality.

http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria, still less run some
purported accessibility checkers. If you don't see at once that the page
is inaccessible and cannot be made accessible, except in the sense of
total redesign, the messages from checkers will at most confuse you more
and make you add some additional problems.

So try and find some accessibility primer and read it. Or attend some
crash course in accessibility.

Final hint: if you start presenting excuses for inaccessible solutions,
then you know you are wrong. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.

 

[Steve Pugh]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.

its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
the onmouseover one).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions,

Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?

in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
enlargeable).

If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.

Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
Bobby.

Steve

 

[mark | r]

http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the

majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria,

you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?

mark

 

[rf]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?

its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes

The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
required.

and a tooltip).

The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )

If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then the
square wheel you have invented.

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,

Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are they
there?

the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions,

Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with something
that annoys a whole lot more?

If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
the first page) to search engine bots.

Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
least, as a viewer.

in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
moment? Can't I have it?

BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:

700
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg

1200
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg

1500
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg

I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg

You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results

I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.

 

[mark | r]

Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.

according to the online checker it does!

Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
the onmouseover one).

no its just a bit of fancy, nothing important. please allow my indulgences.

Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?

you can substitute flash for non flash version, which is probably whet ill
do.

Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
enlargeable).

If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.

its text replacement for non flash, not a text version of the site.

Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
Bobby.

but people look got the logos!

 

[mark | r]

Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?

its s selling point.

The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
required.

im working on it

but would the tool tip work with the mouse motion?

The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )

Jacob is his own worst enemy. been listed before, got 1000 hits in an hour,
got 3 jobs from it

If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then the
square wheel you have invented.


Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are they
there?

because you lot ALWAYS complain about text as graphics, ive made the
relevant text as big as i can so even at stupid resolutions, you should be
able to read it.

Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with something
that annoys a whole lot more?

We'll find it dificult to sell to customers if we dont show at least SOME
bells and whistles.

If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
the first page) to search engine bots.

not for navigation.

Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
least, as a viewer.


What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
moment? Can't I have it?

if you're going into that argument, then all sites should be bright yellow
or green text on black background.

BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:

700
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg

1200
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg

1500
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg

I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg

lol no thanks, i need to stuff it into a wrapper then , i like some of the
results tho

You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results

I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.

thanks Mark

 

[rf]

you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?

Accessibility means, amongst other things:
Accessible to people with a disability.
Certain people have poor eyesight, a disability.
People with poor eyesight need larger text.
Text as graphics is not resizable.
People with poor eyesight can not read text as graphics.
Your site uses test as graphics.
Your site is not accessible to people with poor eyesight.
Ergo, your site is not accessible.

Pretty bloody obvious I would think...

No matter what bobby thinks.

 

[rf]

its s selling point.

To whom?

The eventual viewers of the material? No.

Your customers? No, if they know enough about web design to know what the
approval means then they know enough to do it themselves and not hire you.
If the know a little bit more they will know that bobby approval is not
worth the canvas real estate it's pixeled on

Jacob is his own worst enemy. been listed before, got 1000 hits in an hour,
got 3 jobs from it

I mentioned Jacob's site not for its own worth but for its discussion of
mystery meat navigation, which you don't really use but imply with that
tooltip, especially since the tooltop overlays the text describing the link.

Think, when I consider a link what do I do? I subcounciously mouse over it.
Then I look at the text describing the link. What have you done? Whacked a
blob of a tooltip over that text. I have to move my mouse *off* the link to
be able to read where the link will take me. Where is my mouse now? Not in a
position to fire that link!

because you lot ALWAYS complain about text as graphics,

So, WHY DID YOU USE TEXT AS GRAPHICS and expect us to not complain?

ive made the
relevant text as big as i can so even at stupid resolutions, you should be
able to read it.

True,I can, with difficulty given that some of it is grey on off white.
However a partially sighted (and dyslexic) friend of mine likes her text to
be about 30 pixels high. Your pictures of text would be unreadable to her.

if you're going into that argument, then all sites should be bright yellow
or green text on black background.

? Where did I mention green on black? Oh, you mean the dark ages before
colour screens. Yep, I lived through that

You did not answer the question. You said "text only version viewable by
using lynx", I implied "I want to view it using Mozilla, without all the
text as images and the flash". So, where is my text version?

lol no thanks, i need to stuff it into a wrapper then

A wrapper? Oh, you mean you are going to throw more div's and CSS at it to
make it behave? Why not just KISS it. It'l probably behave much better all
round then.

i like some of the results tho

Yeah. the wide one is actuallly quite good.

Hmmm, I'm having an argument with a bloke in another thread who wants to
make the font size and the image sizes proportional to the canvas size
<shudder/>. Your layout, expecially at 2000+ pixels, might just work for
him. Wonder if he's reading this thread

 

[Richard]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

mark

My personal take on validation is to ensure that I don't have any serious
coding problems.
Other than that, as long as it works the way I want it to, fine by me.

 

[Psyonicdreams]

according to the online checker it does!

As Steve said its not even close, sorry 8o(

Good use of colours would be a good place to start, i.e. NOT
using white text on a light green background as that would be a
big problem to people with visability problems.

no its just a bit of fancy, nothing important. please allow my

indulgences.

I love the irony, your image with "Creativity that works, etc etc"
has no alt tags so with images off it shows nothing, I guess that
should be "creativity that might work"

its text replacement for non flash, not a text version of the site.

Then you must make sure all pages are accessible.

but people look got the logos!

The test is crap, the logos are worthless without a real
understanding of how to create a accessible site.

Your site says:
Web Accessibility Section 805, WAI & Bobby Approved.
Its not, so that should be removed!

 

[Andy Dingley]

im working on aarrss.com

This sort of s(h)ite makes me reminiscent for the dear old days of
'99. You clearly do not have the first basic clue about
accessibility. Instead of _thinking_ about _why_ you're doing
something, you're fiddling about with the trivial details and looking
for a Bobby logo.

It's not the worst site I've seen. But it's probably the worst that
has struggled through XHTML Strict compliance etc., and all to such
negligible benefit.


Please leave this site exactly as it is. Why misrepresent yourselves ?

 

[mark | r]

even the royal national institute for the blind has text as images!

mark

 

[mark | r]

its all somethign tim working towards, im trying to blend a strong sense of
design and solid development,

its hard to cut this unchatred teritory

mark

 

[mark | r]

This sort of s(h)ite makes me reminiscent for the dear old days of
'99. You clearly do not have the first basic clue about
accessibility. Instead of _thinking_ about _why_ you're doing
something, you're fiddling about with the trivial details and looking
for a Bobby logo.

It's not the worst site I've seen. But it's probably the worst that
has struggled through XHTML Strict compliance etc., and all to such
negligible benefit.

Please leave this site exactly as it is. Why misrepresent yourselves ?

Im thinking about my target audience and what turns them on... if i have a
'boring' site, we'll get no customers, what im trying to do is better than
most "web design sites" as im atleast going part way which should help when
things evolve a bit more. customers look for icons for stuff theyve heard
about, they dont know the implications as its usually imposed from high
above (weve experience of most local government sites as we've pitched for
it all and despite what we say which would be a strict accessible site, they
always go for a shiny lookin one with wizzo features - hence my regression
into glossy design territory)

customers like to see "design" in some form, taking away the glossy design
from sites will simply turn off potential customers.

dispite what you all may think... i do understand accessibility (achieved
certification) it just needs working around in some instances to meet the
needs of my customers.

mark

 

[rf]

even the royal national institute for the blind has text as images!

More fool them. One would think they would know better.

Then again they were probably "helped" by some web dresigner

 

[rf]

its all somethign tim working towards,

What would be?

It would be of extreme benifit to the rest of us if you were to quote the
bit of the prior post to which your comments apply.

 

[jake]

im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

mark

(a) You have a basic problem with your design which makes parts of the
page inaccessible to assistive technologies.

This is your page as a typical talking browser 'sees it':
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/HPR2X.JPG (83k)
[NOTE:
Normal text is in black (spoken with a male voice)
Links are in red (spoken with a female voice)
Headings are in blue (spoken in a robotics voice) ]

The parts that are missing are shown here:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/AATOT2X.JPG (124k)

The problem is caused by using a background image to represent text, and
marking the actual text up as "display:none;".

This is a technique used in 'csszengarden', and which now carries a
'health warning' for the FIR technique:
http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/replace_text/

Not only is the text invisible, you effectively have no headings
anywhere on the page.

(You might want to invest in a screen-reader, or similar, to test your
pages.)

(b) The 508 standard requires that 'a method shall be provided that
permits users to skip repetitive navigation links'.

You don't have any -- so it's not 508 compliant ;-)

(c) Is 'testimonial' really adequate alternative text for the image it's
substituting for? If not, then it fails WAI-A requirements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


On a personal level, I think it's quite a nice design. The only problem
that I see is that the body text is too small. If I reset the text to
'largest' (in IE) it's just about readable. It really shouldn't be that
small .... any good reason why the font size isn't set to 100%?

regards