Good accessibility?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Samuël van Laere, Nov 24, 2004.

  1. Ok first of all its _not_ my website, but please read on.

    Background:
    The website is a Dutch website [http://www.lbt.nl/] that is all about
    promoting accessibility.
    In fact they write on there website:
    "accessibility for everyone"

    Now i had someone using a screenreader visiting the website.
    She is visually impaired and could not read nor get to the alternative
    navigation menu at all.
    Since i have _Flash disabled_ I was offered the alternative navigation.
    Mind you its a frames site (sic).

    Why is it that the alternative menu was only offered to me and not to my
    friend?
    Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    http://www.lbt.nl/

    -- snip --
    To the Dutch posters out here:
    _If_ the website above is indeed not to be considered accessible
    then please contact LBT by e-mail and complain about it, as I will to.
    Note that they might be connected to Drempelsweg [another accessibility
    promotor]:
    http://www.drempelsweg.nl/smartsite.dws?id=247
    -- snip --

    Many thanks in advance for your comments/opinions.

    Regards,
    Samuël van Laere
    The Netherlands
    Samuël van Laere, Nov 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Samuël van Laere

    rf Guest

    Samuël van Laere wrote

    > Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    > http://www.lbt.nl/


    Not.

    Frames. No alt text on navigation images. Navigation in a different frame to
    the content. Totally unusable in lynx.

    The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
    the latetest microsoft browser. On drilling down to the first frame, named
    menu, I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
    person? Said person would be long gone at this point.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <H7Sod.19785$>, Samuël van Laere
    <> writes
    >Ok first of all its _not_ my website, but please read on.
    >
    >Background:
    >The website is a Dutch website [http://www.lbt.nl/] that is all about
    >promoting accessibility.
    >In fact they write on there website:
    >"accessibility for everyone"
    >
    >Now i had someone using a screenreader visiting the website.
    >She is visually impaired and could not read nor get to the alternative
    >navigation menu at all.
    >Since i have _Flash disabled_ I was offered the alternative navigation.


    >Mind you its a frames site (sic).
    >
    >Why is it that the alternative menu was only offered to me and not to my
    >friend?
    >Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    >http://www.lbt.nl/
    >
    >-- snip --
    >To the Dutch posters out here:
    >_If_ the website above is indeed not to be considered accessible
    >then please contact LBT by e-mail and complain about it, as I will to.
    >Note that they might be connected to Drempelsweg [another accessibility
    >promotor]:
    >http://www.drempelsweg.nl/smartsite.dws?id=247
    >-- snip --
    >
    >Many thanks in advance for your comments/opinions.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Samuël van Laere
    >The Netherlands
    >
    >

    The menu frame is nothing but a container for a Flash object -- most
    (all?) AT readers/browsers won't handle a Flash object. So the menu's
    inaccessible to AT users.

    However, I really have no idea how you received alternative navigation
    and will be very interested in hearing the answer ;-)

    >
    >
    >
    >


    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 24, 2004
    #3
  4. in alt.html, Samuël van Laere wrote:
    > Ok first of all its _not_ my website, but please read on.
    >
    > Background:
    > The website is a Dutch website [http://www.lbt.nl/] that is all about
    > promoting accessibility.


    As usual, it serves as example on how to not do accessibility...

    > In fact they write on there website:
    > "accessibility for everyone"
    >
    > Now i had someone using a screenreader visiting the website.
    > She is visually impaired and could not read nor get to the alternative
    > navigation menu at all.
    > Since i have _Flash disabled_ I was offered the alternative navigation.
    > Mind you its a frames site (sic).


    I wasn't.

    > Why is it that the alternative menu was only offered to me and not to my
    > friend?


    Who cares...

    > Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    > http://www.lbt.nl/


    It is unaccessible.

    > -- snip --
    > To the Dutch posters out here:
    > _If_ the website above is indeed not to be considered accessible
    > then please contact LBT by e-mail and complain about it, as I will to.
    > Note that they might be connected to Drempelsweg [another accessibility
    > promotor]:
    > http://www.drempelsweg.nl/smartsite.dws?id=247


    I think I will do that as soon as I learn Dutch. Should happen in
    January.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <UmSod.46532$>, rf
    <rf@?.invalid> writes
    >Samuël van Laere wrote
    >
    >> Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    >> http://www.lbt.nl/

    >
    >Not.
    >
    >Frames.


    Not an accessibility issue - although better <title></title> entries
    would be appreciated.

    >No alt text on navigation images.


    What 'navigation images'? -- they're all part of a Flash object.

    >Navigation in a different frame to
    >the content.


    Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
    useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
    away.

    >Totally unusable in lynx.
    >

    Yes; use of Flash is.

    >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
    >the latetest microsoft browser.


    Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames (and I
    can't think of any modern UA that doesn't support frames, offhand).

    The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
    would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
    of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
    a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.

    >On drilling down to the first frame, named
    >menu, I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
    >person? Said person would be long gone at this point.


    Quite agree. Site is inaccessible.

    >

    regards.
    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Samuël van Laere

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:13:59 GMT, "Samuël van Laere"
    <> wrote:

    >The website is a Dutch website [http://www.lbt.nl/] that is all about
    >promoting accessibility.
    >In fact they write on there website:
    >"accessibility for everyone"


    This is very common. In one way, _why_ should an organisation
    promoting physical accessibility be expected to understand web
    accessibility ? It's an entirely different set of skills.

    I'd like to know (and my Dutch isn't good enough) to know who built
    this website. Was it built by the organisation ? Was it built by an
    outside agency ? That is much worse, IMHO, as a commercial web
    designer ought to understand accessibility and an accessibility
    organisation ought to know enough to ask for it.

    >Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    >http://www.lbt.nl/


    Well, it's so terrible that there is no point in even beginning to go
    through it point-by-point.

    --
    Smert' spamionam
    Andy Dingley, Nov 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Samuël van Laere

    Kris Guest

    In article <H7Sod.19785$>,
    "Samuël van Laere" <> wrote:

    > To the Dutch posters out here:
    > _If_ the website above is indeed not to be considered accessible
    > then please contact LBT by e-mail and complain about it, as I will to.
    > Note that they might be connected to Drempelsweg [another accessibility
    > promotor]:
    > http://www.drempelsweg.nl/smartsite.dws?id=247


    In fact, they are connected. They are the founding organisation of
    DrempelsWeg.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    Kris, Nov 24, 2004
    #7
  8. "jake" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >
    > However, I really have no idea how you received alternative navigation
    > and will be very interested in hearing the answer ;-)
    >


    Simple, i have Flash disabled and because of that i was offered alternative
    navigation instead.
    Though one is forced to click twice before having in onscreen. It sucks.

    Regards,
    Sam
    Samuël van Laere, Nov 24, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <UmSod.46532$>,
    rf@.invalid says...
    > I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
    > person? Said person would be long gone at this point.


    Blind people can't hear?
    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Samuël van Laere

    rf Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > rf@.invalid says...
    > > I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
    > > person? Said person would be long gone at this point.

    >
    > Blind people can't hear?


    Good point :)

    However, even when I plugged said site into a browser that does have flash
    installed I still didn't hear anything.

    I (purposely) do not have any speakers on this PC :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 25, 2004
    #10
  11. in alt.html, jake wrote:
    > In message <UmSod.46532$>, rf
    > <rf@?.invalid> writes
    > >Samuël van Laere wrote
    > >
    > >> Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    > >> http://www.lbt.nl/

    > >
    > >Not.
    > >
    > >Frames.

    >
    > Not an accessibility issue - although better <title></title> entries
    > would be appreciated.


    Sure it is accessibility issue. Accesibility issue is not something being
    totally unaccessible, but something that causes problems on access. Blind
    people can read images of text, with some tools. That surely donät make
    images of text accessible

    > >Navigation in a different frame to
    > >the content.

    >
    > Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
    > useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
    > away.


    You have very stange idea of accessibility.


    > >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
    > >the latetest microsoft browser.

    >
    > Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames


    Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.

    > The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
    > would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
    > of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
    > a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.


    I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    possible, but 4 is impossible.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <>, Lauri
    Raittila <> writes
    >in alt.html, jake wrote:
    >> In message <UmSod.46532$>, rf
    >> <rf@?.invalid> writes
    >> >Samuël van Laere wrote
    >> >
    >> >> Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
    >> >> http://www.lbt.nl/
    >> >
    >> >Not.
    >> >
    >> >Frames.

    >>
    >> Not an accessibility issue - although better <title></title> entries
    >> would be appreciated.

    >
    >Sure it is accessibility issue.


    Perhaps you'd like to explain, please?

    >Accesibility issue is not something being
    >totally unaccessible, but something that causes problems on access.


    If it's an 'accessibility' issue, then the technique being used should
    make it difficult or impossible for a person to access the information
    easily. How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
    problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

    > Blind
    >people can read images of text, with some tools.


    You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
    could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
    sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

    >That surely donät make
    >images of text accessible


    Pardon?.
    >
    >> >Navigation in a different frame to
    >> >the content.

    >>
    >> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
    >> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
    >> away.

    >
    >You have very stange idea of accessibility.


    Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
    become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
    modern AT user.

    The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
    as using frames for layout.

    >
    >
    >> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
    >> >the latetest microsoft browser.

    >>
    >> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames

    >
    >Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.


    Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
    off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.

    >
    >> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
    >> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
    >> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
    >> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.

    >
    >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    >possible, but 4 is impossible.


    Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
    screen-reader ;-)
    >

    Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
    hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
    convinced otherwise.

    I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    crowd ;-)

    regards.

    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 25, 2004
    #12
  13. in alt.html, jake wrote:
    > In message <>, Lauri


    > >> >> http://www.lbt.nl/


    > >> >Not.
    > >> >
    > >> >Frames.


    > >Sure it is accessibility issue.

    >
    > Perhaps you'd like to explain, please?


    > If it's an 'accessibility' issue, then the technique being used should
    > make it difficult or impossible for a person to access the information
    > easily.


    Exactly.

    > How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
    > problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.


    1) you make assumption of modern UA.
    2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
    2.
    3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.
    4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
    for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
    such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
    five.
    5) It is not easy to print the page
    6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.

    + All the other normal problems:
    http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

    Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
    people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
    popular today.

    > > Blind
    > >people can read images of text, with some tools.

    >
    > You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
    > could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
    > sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?


    Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
    Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.

    > >That surely don't make
    > >images of text accessible

    >
    > Pardon?.


    If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
    accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
    read/hear it. That is because it is very hard to do.

    > >
    > >> >Navigation in a different frame to
    > >> >the content.
    > >>
    > >> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
    > >> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
    > >> away.

    > >
    > >You have very stange idea of accessibility.

    >
    > Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
    > become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
    > modern AT user.


    Again, you say modern UA. Thewre is no browser in which I dont' find
    frames problem. And I have good vision and I am very good at using those
    browsers. Many browser also don't mark links visited until you refresh
    the page, which makes navigation frame use pain...

    > The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
    > as using frames for layout.


    Which is what is done on the page in question. And, I have seen one case
    where frames were suitable, and it was not traditional webpage, but web
    based (useless) application

    > >> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
    > >> >the latetest microsoft browser.
    > >>
    > >> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames


    > >Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.

    >
    > Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
    > off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.


    Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?

    > >> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
    > >> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
    > >> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
    > >> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.

    > >
    > >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    > >possible, but 4 is impossible.

    >
    > Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
    > screen-reader ;-)


    Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
    possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...

    > Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
    > hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
    > convinced otherwise.


    I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.

    > I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    > crowd ;-)


    I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 25, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <kcapd.47512$>,
    rf@.invalid says...
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > rf@.invalid says...
    > > > I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
    > > > person? Said person would be long gone at this point.

    > >
    > > Blind people can't hear?

    >
    > Good point :)
    >
    > However, even when I plugged said site into a browser that does have flash
    > installed I still didn't hear anything.


    Also good point


    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <>, Lauri
    Raittila <> writes
    [snip what we agree]

    >
    >> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
    >> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

    >
    >1) you make assumption of modern UA.

    I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:

    Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
    as the browser):
    http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
    will do to test keyboard navigation.).

    >2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
    > 2.

    (I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
    comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
    any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
    combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
    much 'bargain-basement' here.)

    >3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.


    Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
    from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
    'tab' key. I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
    keys. I can go to another main page with 'return'.

    Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
    keyboard?

    >4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
    >for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
    >such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
    >five.

    Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.

    I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
    user should consider using an assistive technology UA?


    >5) It is not easy to print the page


    I've just printed a page without difficulty.

    >6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.


    I've just saved a page for offline use.
    >


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------

    >+ All the other normal problems:
    >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

    ".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
    what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....." ;-)
    >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html


    But none of which addresses accessibility.

    >
    >Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
    >people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
    >popular today.


    Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.

    >
    >> > Blind
    >> >people can read images of text, with some tools.

    >>
    >> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
    >> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
    >> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

    >
    >Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
    >Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.


    If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
    displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
    it. Do you know what it's called?
    >
    >> >That surely don't make
    >> >images of text accessible

    >>
    >> Pardon?.

    >
    >If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
    >accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
    >read/hear it.


    >That is because it is very hard to do.


    Not sure I take your point.

    <img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
    will they not?
    >
    >> >
    >> >> >Navigation in a different frame to
    >> >> >the content.
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
    >> >> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
    >> >> away.
    >> >
    >> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.

    >>
    >> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
    >> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
    >> modern AT user.

    >
    >Again, you say modern UA. Thewre is no browser in which I dont' find
    >frames problem. And I have good vision and I am very good at using those
    >browsers. Many browser also don't mark links visited until you refresh
    >the page, which makes navigation frame use pain...
    >
    >> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
    >> as using frames for layout.

    >
    >Which is what is done on the page in question. And, I have seen one case
    >where frames were suitable, and it was not traditional webpage, but web
    >based (useless) application
    >
    >> >> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about
    >> >> >installing
    >> >> >the latetest microsoft browser.
    >> >>
    >> >> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames

    >
    >> >Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.

    >>
    >> Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
    >> off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.

    >
    >Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?


    Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.
    >
    >> >> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
    >> >> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
    >> >> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
    >> >> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.
    >> >
    >> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    >> >possible, but 4 is impossible.

    >>
    >> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
    >> screen-reader ;-)

    >
    >Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
    >possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...


    Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
    population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
    Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible ;-)

    >
    >> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
    >> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
    >> convinced otherwise.

    >
    >I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.


    Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
    assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.
    >
    >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    >> crowd ;-)

    >
    >I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.


    Thank you for a most interesting and informative discussion.

    regards.
    >


    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 26, 2004
    #15
  16. in alt.html, jake wrote:
    > In message <>, Lauri
    > Raittila <> writes
    > [snip what we agree]
    >
    > >
    > >> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
    > >> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

    > >
    > >1) you make assumption of modern UA.

    > I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:
    >
    > Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
    > as the browser):


    So, lets ignore the orginal question...

    > http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
    > will do to test keyboard navigation.).


    This is ugly hack that has one 100% frame, with other, frame inside.
    First noframe content links to other *frameset*

    Page also has all most problems said in URLs I give you. My arguments
    were for properly made frames site. I don't know any frames site that is
    done well, so I can't point one to you.

    > >2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
    > > 2.

    > (I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
    > comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
    > any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
    > combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
    > much 'bargain-basement' here.)


    Well, it is not inaccessible. The point is not that something is
    inaccessible, but that something is less accessible than something else.

    > >3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.

    >
    > Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
    > from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
    > 'tab' key.


    Maybe. In opera, only spatial navigation is as easy as normally.
    Findinline and normal next/previous link is needs frame to be focused.

    > I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
    > keys.


    And if the navigation needs scrolling too. For example if font size
    required is twice as big? After all, that happens on 15" and 1600*1200
    displays. Those are quite popular on high end laptops. And of course
    people with nonperfect eye sight.

    > I can go to another main page with 'return'.


    And how do you scroll right frame?

    > Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
    > keyboard?


    I can find several things I am not able to do to navigate there. I can
    navigate anywhere, but it is much harder.

    For example, to get links link on normal page, I ca access it by typing
    <ctr + contextmenu> l i n <enter>
    On this page, I need either to focus right frame first, or use spatial
    navigation. As I don't remember the key to change frame I can't do that
    easily, and spatial navigation don't work.

    Also, as focus happens to be on main frame after loading, A and Q keys
    seems to not work as next/previous link function as usually.

    > >4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
    > >for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
    > >such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
    > >five.

    > Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.
    >
    > I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
    > user should consider using an assistive technology UA?


    Well, that doesn't help, as you use frames, and so need to find correct
    frame at some point. For person needing 10cm letters, it will take some
    time to find right frame (even if they were named sencibly: in case of
    odas, they are called leftframe and mainframe.)

    > >5) It is not easy to print the page

    >
    > I've just printed a page without difficulty.


    Again, your argument is "Works for me, must be accessible"

    > >6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.

    >
    > I've just saved a page for offline use.


    I did not say it is impossible.

    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --------
    >
    > >+ All the other normal problems:
    > >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    > >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

    > ".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
    > what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....." ;-)
    > >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

    >
    > But none of which addresses accessibility.


    You seem to use entirely your own meaning for word accessibility.

    > >Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
    > >people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
    > >popular today.

    >
    > Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.


    Accessibility is more than usability. If something has lousy usability,
    it also has bad accessibility. Good usablilty can sometimes have bad
    accessibility, but extremily rarely other way around.


    > >> > Blind
    > >> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
    > >>
    > >> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
    > >> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
    > >> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

    > >
    > >Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
    > >Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.

    >
    > If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
    > displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
    > it. Do you know what it's called?


    No. But blind person cuould save image, use OCR, replace image in
    webpage. Would not be hard to build such thing. The point is that it
    makes no sence, as accessible website would include alt-text.

    > >> >That surely don't make
    > >> >images of text accessible
    > >>
    > >> Pardon?.


    > >If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
    > >accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
    > >read/hear it.

    >
    > >That is because it is very hard to do.



    > Not sure I take your point.


    The point is that almost nothing in internet is totally inaccessible. The
    point is weather something is accessible easily enaugh to be useful

    > <img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
    > will they not?


    Good thing. You finally got something. Same with frames, all browsers
    work perfectly fine whitout them.

    > >> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
    > >>
    > >> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
    > >> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
    > >> modern AT user.


    Accessibility is about everybody, not about modern AT users.

    > >> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
    > >> as using frames for layout.

    > >
    > >Which is what is done on the page in question.


    And with your new example. It actually uses nested framesets.

    > >Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?

    >
    > Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.


    Of course. That is because such things don't exist.

    > >> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    > >> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
    > >>
    > >> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
    > >> screen-reader ;-)

    > >
    > >Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
    > >possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...

    >
    > Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
    > population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
    > Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible ;-)


    Accessibility is not about sizable populations

    > >> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
    > >> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
    > >> convinced otherwise.

    > >
    > >I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.

    >
    > Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
    > assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.


    Well again need of that fucking advanced technology reader. The
    accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
    problems also want to access pages.

    > >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    > >> crowd ;-)


    I think you have never actually read all those articles about frames all
    over net.

    > >I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.

    >
    > Thank you for a most interesting and informative discussion.
    >
    > regards.


    *plonk*

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 26, 2004
    #16
  17. in alt.html, jake wrote:
    > In message <>, Lauri
    > Raittila <> writes
    > [snip what we agree]
    >
    > >
    > >> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
    > >> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

    > >
    > >1) you make assumption of modern UA.

    > I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:
    >
    > Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
    > as the browser):


    So, lets ignore the orginal question...

    > http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
    > will do to test keyboard navigation.).


    This is ugly hack that has one 100% frame, with other, frame inside.
    First noframe content links to other *frameset*

    Page also has all most problems said in URLs I give you. My arguments
    were for properly made frames site. I don't know any frames site that is
    done well, so I can't point one to you.

    > >2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
    > > 2.

    > (I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
    > comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
    > any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
    > combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
    > much 'bargain-basement' here.)


    Well, it is not inaccessible. The point is not that something is
    inaccessible, but that something is less accessible than something else.

    > >3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.

    >
    > Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
    > from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
    > 'tab' key.


    Maybe. In opera, only spatial navigation is as easy as normally.
    Findinline and normal next/previous link is needs frame to be focused.

    > I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
    > keys.


    And if the navigation needs scrolling too. For example if font size
    required is twice as big? After all, that happens on 15" and 1600*1200
    displays. Those are quite popular on high end laptops. And of course
    people with nonperfect eye sight.

    > I can go to another main page with 'return'.


    And how do you scroll right frame?

    > Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
    > keyboard?


    I can find several things I am not able to do to navigate there. I can
    navigate anywhere, but it is much harder.

    For example, to get links link on normal page, I ca access it by typing
    <ctr + contextmenu> l i n <enter>
    On this page, I need either to focus right frame first, or use spatial
    navigation. As I don't remember the key to change frame I can't do that
    easily, and spatial navigation don't work.

    Also, as focus happens to be on main frame after loading, A and Q keys
    seems to not work as next/previous link function as usually.

    > >4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
    > >for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
    > >such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
    > >five.

    > Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.
    >
    > I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
    > user should consider using an assistive technology UA?


    Well, that doesn't help, as you use frames, and so need to find correct
    frame at some point. For person needing 10cm letters, it will take some
    time to find right frame (even if they were named sencibly: in case of
    odas, they are called leftframe and mainframe.)

    > >5) It is not easy to print the page

    >
    > I've just printed a page without difficulty.


    Again, your argument is "Works for me, must be accessible"

    > >6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.

    >
    > I've just saved a page for offline use.


    I did not say it is impossible.

    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --------
    >
    > >+ All the other normal problems:
    > >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    > >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

    > ".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
    > what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....." ;-)
    > >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

    >
    > But none of which addresses accessibility.


    You seem to use entirely your own meaning for word accessibility.

    > >Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
    > >people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
    > >popular today.

    >
    > Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.


    Accessibility is more than usability. If something has lousy usability,
    it also has bad accessibility. Good usablilty can sometimes have bad
    accessibility, but extremily rarely other way around.


    > >> > Blind
    > >> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
    > >>
    > >> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
    > >> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
    > >> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

    > >
    > >Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
    > >Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.

    >
    > If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
    > displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
    > it. Do you know what it's called?


    No. But blind person cuould save image, use OCR, replace image in
    webpage. Would not be hard to build such thing. The point is that it
    makes no sence, as accessible website would include alt-text.

    > >> >That surely don't make
    > >> >images of text accessible
    > >>
    > >> Pardon?.


    > >If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
    > >accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
    > >read/hear it.

    >
    > >That is because it is very hard to do.



    > Not sure I take your point.


    The point is that almost nothing in internet is totally inaccessible. The
    point is weather something is accessible easily enaugh to be useful

    > <img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
    > will they not?


    Good thing. You finally got something. Same with frames, all browsers
    work perfectly fine whitout them.

    > >> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
    > >>
    > >> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
    > >> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
    > >> modern AT user.


    Accessibility is about everybody, not about modern AT users.

    > >> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
    > >> as using frames for layout.

    > >
    > >Which is what is done on the page in question.


    And with your new example. It actually uses nested framesets.

    > >Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?

    >
    > Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.


    Of course. That is because such things don't exist.

    > >> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
    > >> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
    > >>
    > >> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
    > >> screen-reader ;-)

    > >
    > >Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
    > >possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...

    >
    > Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
    > population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
    > Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible ;-)


    Accessibility is not about sizable populations

    > >> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
    > >> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
    > >> convinced otherwise.

    > >
    > >I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.

    >
    > Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
    > assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.


    Well again need of that fucking advanced technology reader. The
    accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
    problems also want to access pages.

    > >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    > >> crowd ;-)


    I think you have never actually read all those articles about frames all
    over net.
    Or maybe you just don't know any modern browser (I see you did use tab
    for keyboard navigation).

    Ignorance of tools is one problem in accessibility. There lots of people
    that can't read small text out there that don't know what to do when IEs
    font size thingy don't work.


    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <>, Lauri
    Raittila <> writes

    [snip lot's of interesting discussion, even if the responses don't
    always necessarily tally with the points raised ;-).]

    >
    >*plonk*
    >

    Fine by me. I understand it must be difficult to try and stay focused.

    regards.
    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 27, 2004
    #18
  19. Samuël van Laere

    jake Guest

    In message <>, Lauri
    Raittila <> writes
    >in alt.html, jake wrote:

    [snip it all again -- so good you had to say it twice, eh? ]

    >
    >Ignorance of tools is one problem in accessibility. There lots of people
    >that can't read small text out there that don't know what to do when IEs
    >font size thingy don't work.
    >

    "Tools" --> "Internet Options" --> "Accessibility" --> "Ignore font
    sizes....."
    >

    But as you've killfiled me, I guess you'll never know .... ;-)

    regards.
    --
    Jake
    jake, Nov 27, 2004
    #19
  20. Samuël van Laere

    kchayka Guest

    Lauri Raittila wrote:
    > in alt.html, jake wrote:
    >>
    >> But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
    >> population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
    >> Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible ;-)

    >
    > Accessibility is not about sizable populations
    > accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
    > problems also want to access pages.


    Accessibility is also not just about visually impaired users.
    Are framed sites easily accessible on mobile devices? The answer isn't
    so important as remembering to look at other facets of accessibility,
    not just assistive technology.

    >> >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
    >> >> crowd ;-)


    Methinks you, jake, have been too heavily influenced by your own testing
    with HPR. It is not the be-all of accessibility tests, you know. And you
    are probably not a "typical" HPR user, either.

    BTW, I do think frames probably are more a usability problem than an
    accessibility one, but that is more than enough reason to avoid them.

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
    kchayka, Nov 27, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul G
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\)
    Feb 26, 2004
  2. James Brett

    asp.net and wai accessibility

    James Brett, May 21, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    352
    James Brett
    May 21, 2004
  3. darrel

    accessibility.dll - what's it for?

    darrel, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,687
    darrel
    Sep 29, 2004
  4. corey s.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    corey s.
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. Chaddy2222
    Replies:
    389
    Views:
    5,656
    Phil Payne
    Nov 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page