is this design 'accessible' ?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by mark | r, Sep 10, 2003.

  1. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    http://www.brook.neue.co.uk/xhtmldefault.asp

    ive re-coded the site to use tableless layout, i know it looks BAD in nn4
    but is perfect in ie6 / moz

    i just wondered if anyone will give me feedback on the page's accessibility
    as this site really needs to conform.

    i am aiming the site at browser and text based browsers and am trying to get
    the perfect form...

    i know there will be issues with the menu but hopefully this has been
    combated by the use of .js files to load this in separately.

    i would appreciate constructive suggestions and solutions, not nitpicking :)

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mark | r

    Davmagic com Guest

    >From: (mark | r)
    >http://www.brook.neue.co.uk/xhtmldefault
    >asp
    >ive re-coded the site to use tableless
    >layout, i know it looks BAD in nn4 but is
    >perfect in ie6 / moz
    >i just wondered if anyone will give me
    >feedback on the page's accessibility as
    >this site really needs to conform.


    Not compatable on MSNTV Browser.....>

    Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
    INFO 2000 For You
    http://www.davmagic.com
    See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
    Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp
     
    Davmagic com, Sep 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mark | r

    m Guest

    mark | r wrote:

    > http://www.brook.neue.co.uk/xhtmldefault.asp
    >
    > ive re-coded the site to use tableless layout, i know it looks BAD in nn4
    > but is perfect in ie6 / moz
    >
    > i just wondered if anyone will give me feedback on the page's accessibility
    > as this site really needs to conform.
    >
    > i am aiming the site at browser and text based browsers and am trying to get
    > the perfect form...
    >
    > i know there will be issues with the menu but hopefully this has been
    > combated by the use of .js files to load this in separately.
    >
    > i would appreciate constructive suggestions and solutions, not nitpicking :)
    >
    > mark
    >
    >

    http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bo...t&line=line&an_errs=an_errs&stealth=Bobby/3.3
    ....is a link to have Bobby check your page. It's finding a few errors, and will
    give suggestions for things you should look at.
     
    m, Sep 10, 2003
    #3
  4. mark | r

    Isofarro Guest

    mark | r wrote:

    > http://www.brook.neue.co.uk/xhtmldefault.asp
    >
    > ive re-coded the site to use tableless layout, i know it looks BAD in nn4
    > but is perfect in ie6 / moz
    >
    > i just wondered if anyone will give me feedback on the page's
    > accessibility as this site really needs to conform.


    With Javascript, plugins and images disabled in Konqueror 3.0.0 its almost a
    blank screen. No navigation (other than a home link). There's no obvious
    content available, just a few links to news.asp and products.asp in various
    guises.

    The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without scripting,
    yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.

    Looking at your source there's a list of links with a class of hidden - that
    should be visible when javascript is not available.

    Your Fahrner image replacement is inaccessible. See Tom Gilder's accessible
    alternative instead.

    Have a look at http://www.accessifyforum.com/ Theres a lot of discussion
    going on there about site repairs.



    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
     
    Isofarro, Sep 10, 2003
    #4
  5. mark | r

    mark | r Guest


    >

    http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?advanced=true&URL=http:/%2
    Fwww.brook.neue.co.uk%2Fxhtmldefault.asp&gl=wcag1-aaa&Text=text&line=line&an
    _errs=an_errs&stealth=Bobby%2F3.3
    > ...is a link to have Bobby check your page. It's finding a few errors,

    and will
    > give suggestions for things you should look at.



    my site passes the checklists - the autovalidate says there are errors but
    its been taken into consideration.

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 10, 2003
    #5
  6. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without scripting,
    > yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.
    >
    > Looking at your source there's a list of links with a class of hidden -

    that
    > should be visible when javascript is not available.
    >
    > Your Fahrner image replacement is inaccessible. See Tom Gilder's

    accessible
    > alternative instead.
    >
    > Have a look at http://www.accessifyforum.com/ Theres a lot of discussion
    > going on there about site repairs.



    so you suggest using noscript over hidden classes ?

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 10, 2003
    #6
  7. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    "Isofarro" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > mark | r wrote:
    >
    > > http://www.brook.neue.co.uk/xhtmldefault.asp
    > >
    > > ive re-coded the site to use tableless layout, i know it looks BAD in

    nn4
    > > but is perfect in ie6 / moz
    > >
    > > i just wondered if anyone will give me feedback on the page's
    > > accessibility as this site really needs to conform.

    >
    > With Javascript, plugins and images disabled in Konqueror 3.0.0 its almost

    a
    > blank screen. No navigation (other than a home link). There's no obvious
    > content available, just a few links to news.asp and products.asp in

    various
    > guises.
    >
    > The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without

    scripting,
    > yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.
    >
    > Looking at your source there's a list of links with a class of hidden -

    that
    > should be visible when javascript is not available.
    >
    > Your Fahrner image replacement is inaccessible. See Tom Gilder's

    accessible
    > alternative instead.
    >
    > Have a look at http://www.accessifyforum.com/ Theres a lot of discussion
    > going on there about site repairs.



    ive seen toms script and it only works with background images to text
    links - which is great in theory, but not when you have a long horizontal
    nav

    mark

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 10, 2003
    #7
  8. mark | r

    Isofarro Guest

    mark | r wrote:

    > The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without
    > scripting,
    >> yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.
    >>
    >> Looking at your source there's a list of links with a class of hidden -

    > that
    >> should be visible when javascript is not available.
    >>
    >> Your Fahrner image replacement is inaccessible. See Tom Gilder's

    > accessible
    >> alternative instead.
    >>
    >> Have a look at http://www.accessifyforum.com/ Theres a lot of discussion
    >> going on there about site repairs.

    >
    >
    > so you suggest using noscript over hidden classes ?


    Isn't the link list supposed to be the fallback when javascript is not
    available? If not, then you need something to provide what you've entrusted
    to javascript too.


    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
     
    Isofarro, Sep 10, 2003
    #8
  9. While the city slept, Isofarro <> feverishly
    typed:

    > The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without
    > scripting, yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.


    IMHO, you should never need to use <noscript> to provide navigation. IMHO,
    you should never need to use <noscript> at all! :)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss.

    Email address is not valid. . Take the dog out!
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
    "How strange the change from major to minor..."
     
    nice.guy.nige, Sep 11, 2003
    #9
  10. mark | r

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Not compatable on MSNTV Browser.....>


    Damn! That means that neither of their users will be able to see the
    site.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Sep 11, 2003
    #10
  11. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    > > The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without
    > > scripting,
    > >> yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.
    > >>
    > >> Looking at your source there's a list of links with a class of hidden -

    > > that
    > >> should be visible when javascript is not available.
    > >>
    > >> Your Fahrner image replacement is inaccessible. See Tom Gilder's

    > > accessible
    > >> alternative instead.
    > >>
    > >> Have a look at http://www.accessifyforum.com/ Theres a lot of

    discussion
    > >> going on there about site repairs.

    > >
    > >
    > > so you suggest using noscript over hidden classes ?

    >
    > Isn't the link list supposed to be the fallback when javascript is not
    > available? If not, then you need something to provide what you've

    entrusted
    > to javascript too.


    yes the list is the alternative option

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 11, 2003
    #11
  12. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    > > The W3C WAI guidelines specify that your pages must work without
    > > scripting, yet there's no <noscript> elements to provide navigation.

    >
    > IMHO, you should never need to use <noscript> to provide navigation. IMHO,
    > you should never need to use <noscript> at all! :)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nige
    >
    > Nigel Moss.


    so whats the alternative display:none or noscript?

    mark
     
    mark | r, Sep 11, 2003
    #12
  13. mark | r

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote:

    >so whats the alternative display:none or noscript?


    JavaScript can be on or off, or on but not supporting all the
    properties you need in your script.
    CSS can be on or off.

    Put those two together and you have six different cases.

    You need somethinga that will work in all six cases.

    The best solution is often to have the navigation in the plain HTML,
    so when JS and CSS is off it displays and works.
    Now add CSS to style it.
    Now add JS, use object detection to test for all the objects and
    properties that you use.
    If everything is present and correct then use JS to alter the style
    properties as required.

    Then go and test it in a range of browsers with JS and/or CSS
    disabled, making sure that you hit all six of the possible cases.
    (having both a recent and an older version of Opera is useful here -
    Opera makes this sort of testing easy as it allows for very quick
    enabling/disabling of features and the older versions had patchy
    DOM/JS support so they give you the "JS on but features not supported"
    cases).

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Sep 11, 2003
    #13
  14. mark | r

    kchayka Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    >
    > The best solution is often to have the navigation in the plain HTML,
    > so when JS and CSS is off it displays and works.


    I don't necessarily agree with this. In essence, you end up with a site
    map hard-coded on every page. In cases where JS is off, long, nested
    lists is little more than bloat. I side with writing the full menu
    contents out using JS, so those who have it enabled get the perks of a
    DHTML menu and those who don't have JS enabled don't get pages of excess
    cruft as punishment. Give those users just the bare minimum via <noscript>.

    A static site map should be a separate page, not incorporated on every
    page. This is especially true for large menus. IMO, of course.

    If this is wrong thinking, can someone explain why?

    --
    To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
    address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
     
    kchayka, Sep 11, 2003
    #14
  15. mark | r

    Steve Pugh Guest

    kchayka <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>
    >> The best solution is often to have the navigation in the plain HTML,
    >> so when JS and CSS is off it displays and works.

    >
    >I don't necessarily agree with this. In essence, you end up with a site
    >map hard-coded on every page. In cases where JS is off, long, nested
    >lists is little more than bloat.


    You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the page is. If it's a
    navigation page then those links need to be there for all users. It
    it's a content page then the links are not needed and should not be
    there for any users.

    If for some reason you want lost of links on every page then you
    presumably actually do want lots of links on every page.
    Most users won't really care if there are lost of links stuck away
    down the bottom of the page.

    > I side with writing the full menu contents out using JS,


    via DOM manipulation or via document.write ?

    >so those who have it enabled get the perks of a
    >DHTML menu and those who don't have JS enabled don't get pages of excess
    >cruft as punishment. Give those users just the bare minimum via <noscript>.


    Or include the top level of navigation in the HTML so it is always
    present and then add the lower levels via the DOM.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Sep 11, 2003
    #15
  16. mark | r

    kchayka Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > kchayka <> wrote:
    >>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The best solution is often to have the navigation in the plain HTML,
    >>> so when JS and CSS is off it displays and works.

    >>
    >>I don't necessarily agree with this. In essence, you end up with a site
    >>map hard-coded on every page. In cases where JS is off, long, nested
    >>lists is little more than bloat.

    >
    > You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the page is. If it's a
    > navigation page then those links need to be there for all users.


    I think one of us is confused. :) Maybe it's me, maybe I didn't quote
    enough of the previous post, or maybe we have two different ideas about
    what DHTML menus are.

    At any rate, if it's a navigation page, like a site map or section TOC,
    then we might not _need_ a DHTML menu. The page content _is_ the
    navigation menu, after all.

    > It
    > it's a content page then the links are not needed and should not be
    > there for any users.


    The usual draw of DHTML menus is to have links to pretty much everywhere
    at the site available on every page, including (nested) submenu links.
    If they don't belong on content pages, then they don't belong anywhere
    and this discussion is pretty much moot. Or are you envisioning
    something I'm not?

    > If for some reason you want lost of links on every page then you
    > presumably actually do want lots of links on every page.


    But not always visible, or even always immediately accessible. Just
    imagine a screen reader trying to access a (nested) submenu link,
    several layers down. How many links does it have to read before it gets
    to the one the user wants? How many times does that user have to go
    through this long list before they are done at the site?

    > Most users won't really care if there are lost of links stuck away
    > down the bottom of the page.


    You make a bold assumption on how the HTML is structured, methinks. :)
    Besides, who wants to download an extra 10k on every page if they don't
    have JS and won't get the kewlness of a DHTML menu? It's excess, and
    something you have to hunt-and-peck your way through to use. Just give
    them the links to the site map and section TOCs. That's KISS, no?

    At least with JS on, the menu can be cached so it becomes a one-time
    download. BTW, I picked that 10k number out of the air, but I suspect
    the list markup for a large navigation menu could easily be that big,
    depending on link text and such.

    >> I side with writing the full menu contents out using JS,

    >
    > via DOM manipulation or via document.write ?


    Does it matter? If by DOM manipulation you mean creating/adding nodes
    and such, it is perhaps the more elegant method, but perhaps also less
    well supported than document.write, but I'm not certain of that.
    Whichever uses less code and most widely supported, thus is quicker to
    download, run, and maintain, would be my preference.

    --
    To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
    address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
     
    kchayka, Sep 11, 2003
    #16
  17. kchayka wrote:

    > Steve Pugh wrote:
    >
    >> If for some reason you want lost of links on every page then you
    >> presumably actually do want lots of links on every page.

    >
    > But not always visible, or even always immediately accessible.


    I am now of the opinion that such things are generally not a good idea to
    begin with. What is needed on each page is:

    - a search box or link to a search [P]
    - a link to a site map [P]
    - a link to the home page [P]
    - a link to the 'next' page, if appropriate

    and then possibly:

    - a link to the page 'above' this one [S?]
    - a menu of the top pages of the major subsections of the site (no more
    than 6 or 7 of these)
    - links to 3 or 4 related pages

    Where [P] are primary navigation links -- prominent and near the top of
    the page, are secondary navigation links, usually along the side of
    the page and are bottom links -- preferably near the bottom of the
    page.

    For example, say you sell widgets and whatsits. You have three varieties
    of widget (A, B and C) and three varieties of whatsits (X, Y and Z), there
    is no point in having links between /widgets/a.html and /whatsits/x.html.
    But it may be sane to link from /widgets/a.html to /whatsits/index.html
    and from /whatsits/x.html to /widgets/index.html.

    Stop confusing your users. Reduce your number of links.

    Simplification of navigation is on my own TODO list. :)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 12, 2003
    #17
  18. mark | r

    Steve Pugh Guest

    kchayka <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >> kchayka <> wrote:
    >>>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The best solution is often to have the navigation in the plain HTML,
    >>>> so when JS and CSS is off it displays and works.
    >>>
    >>>I don't necessarily agree with this. In essence, you end up with a site
    >>>map hard-coded on every page. In cases where JS is off, long, nested
    >>>lists is little more than bloat.

    >>
    >> You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the page is. If it's a
    >> navigation page then those links need to be there for all users.

    >
    >I think one of us is confused. :) Maybe it's me, maybe I didn't quote
    >enough of the previous post, or maybe we have two different ideas about
    >what DHTML menus are.


    No confusion. I'm talking in general terms not about a specific site.

    >At any rate, if it's a navigation page, like a site map or section TOC,
    >then we might not _need_ a DHTML menu. The page content _is_ the
    >navigation menu, after all.


    How about a home page? Definitely a navigation page, but not good to
    overwhelm the user with many, many links. That's the sort of page I'd
    use a dynamic menu on.

    >> It
    >> it's a content page then the links are not needed and should not be
    >> there for any users.

    >
    >The usual draw of DHTML menus is to have links to pretty much everywhere
    >at the site available on every page, including (nested) submenu links.


    But does it offer any real benefits for real users?

    The usability problems of drop down menus are well documented. To name
    just two - the (sighted) user can't see all the links initially and
    has to hunt around through the menus to see if what they want is
    there; and as these menus are all custom creations thay all act in
    slightly different ways (different time delays; some popup on
    mouseover, others on clicking; etc.).

    Would the time and effort be better spent on information architecture
    so that the site is better structured with appropriate links tied into
    the content?

    Simple example - an an e-commerce site instead having a DHTML menu
    with links from every product to every other product put the effort
    into well thought out cross-selling.

    >> If for some reason you want lost of links on every page then you
    >> presumably actually do want lots of links on every page.

    >
    >But not always visible, or even always immediately accessible. Just
    >imagine a screen reader trying to access a (nested) submenu link,
    >several layers down. How many links does it have to read before it gets
    >to the one the user wants? How many times does that user have to go
    >through this long list before they are done at the site?


    Put the links list at the end of the page.
    Use headings to break up and structure the list.

    Or are you saying that users of screen readers shouldn't have access
    to the same range if navigation options that users of visual browsers
    do? I don't think you are.

    >> Most users won't really care if there are lost of links stuck away
    >> down the bottom of the page.

    >
    >You make a bold assumption on how the HTML is structured, methinks. :)


    You're making the links appear and disappear with JS.
    Why not reposition them with JS as well?

    >Besides, who wants to download an extra 10k on every page if they don't
    >have JS and won't get the kewlness of a DHTML menu?


    The users who want to have a link to every page from every page. Those
    are presumably the people this is all done in aid of. Whether they get
    those links presented in a kewl (but really, DHTML menus are so year
    before last) fashion or not is secondary to the fact that presumably
    the users want the links to be there.

    >It's excess, and
    >something you have to hunt-and-peck your way through to use. Just give
    >them the links to the site map and section TOCs. That's KISS, no?


    Yes. Bingo. That's why it's a bad idea to have lots of navigation
    links on content pages. Regardless of how they are presented.

    >At least with JS on, the menu can be cached so it becomes a one-time
    >download. BTW, I picked that 10k number out of the air, but I suspect
    >the list markup for a large navigation menu could easily be that big,
    >depending on link text and such.


    The cost of the JS code can be much more than the cost of the actual
    links. And the download time for the first page a visitor comes to is
    the most important one .

    >>> I side with writing the full menu contents out using JS,

    >>
    >> via DOM manipulation or via document.write ?

    >
    >Does it matter? If by DOM manipulation you mean creating/adding nodes
    >and such, it is perhaps the more elegant method, but perhaps also less
    >well supported than document.write, but I'm not certain of that.
    >Whichever uses less code and most widely supported, thus is quicker to
    >download, run, and maintain, would be my preference.


    The advantage of creating DOM nodes over document.write is that you
    don't need any <script> elements in the body of the page. Which I will
    admit largely appeals on grounds of elegance but which can have
    maintenance and flexibility advantages as well.

    As for support, we're talking IE5+ and NN6+ (and others). If you want
    to support NN4 and IE4 as well you have to go ye olde route but you
    also have to write branched code anyway to cover the custom
    document.all and document.layers models that they use, which just adds
    to the file size. Having three versions of the code for what is only
    an enhancement is overkill.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Sep 12, 2003
    #18
  19. mark | r

    kchayka Guest

    Toby A Inkster wrote:
    >
    > Stop confusing your users. Reduce your number of links.
    >
    > Simplification of navigation is on my own TODO list. :)


    Groovy :)

    Sometimes, less is indeed more.

    --
    To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
    address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
     
    kchayka, Sep 12, 2003
    #19
  20. mark | r

    Headless Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    >Or are you saying that users of screen readers shouldn't have access
    >to the same range if navigation options that users of visual browsers
    >do?


    For a site with a 7 link navbar I've recently concluded that there are 2
    contradicting requirements.

    For linear/1 dimensional access (screen readers/speaking browsers) of
    the sub pages a single link back to the index page would be ideal,
    thereby preventing the imo pointless reading out of the navbar links on
    every sub page.

    This doesn't apply to 2 dimensional (visual) access of the same
    documents imo, users can effortlessly skip over the navbar, and it
    facilitates quick "zapping" of a site's content.


    Headless

    --
    Email and usenet filter list: http://www.headless.dna.ie/usenet.htm
     
    Headless, Sep 12, 2003
    #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. MS News \(MS ILM\)
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,328
    MS News \(MS ILM\)
    Aug 27, 2003
  2. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
  3. Jack Wright
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,631
    Chris Jackson
    Jan 5, 2004
  4. Murphy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,777
    Murphy
    Apr 20, 2004
  5. Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    391
    Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    Apr 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page