It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Chaddy2222, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. Chaddy2222

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Chaddy2222, Oct 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chaddy2222

    Phil Payne Guest

    Phil Payne, Oct 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chaddy2222

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Chaddy2222, Oct 4, 2007
    #3
  4. Chaddy2222

    Animesh K Guest

    Chaddy2222 wrote:
    > Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
    > a lot of you would be interested.
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
    > --
    > Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    >


    OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
    w3 must be having something.

    Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?

    Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in IE?
    If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
    disabled-accessibility features properly?
    Animesh K, Oct 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Chaddy2222

    Karl Groves Guest

    Animesh K <> wrote in news:fe3chb$2or0$2
    @agate.berkeley.edu:

    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
    >> a lot of you would be interested.
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
    >> --
    >> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    >>

    >
    > OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I

    presume
    > w3 must be having something.


    A quick Googling could have answered that question. ;-)
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/

    Another good source for into: http://www.webaim.org

    >
    > Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?


    Not even close.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

    > Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in

    IE?

    The "bugs" most often encountered in IE most often have to do with
    security and support for web standards. The interface to IE is actually
    pretty accessible.

    > If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
    > disabled-accessibility features properly?


    User agent manufacturers are not to blame for accessibility problems
    created by web authors.

    Generally speaking, the software on the user's computer will be far more
    accessible than the content they encounter on the Web. That's not to say
    that desktop software is immune to accessibility problems, but rather
    that accessible software is far easier to come by than accessible
    websites.


    --
    Karl Groves
    http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
    Karl Groves, Oct 4, 2007
    #5
  6. Chaddy2222

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <>
    wrote:

    >OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
    >w3 must be having something.


    You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
    pitiful.

    The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
    book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
    achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
    http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/
    Andy Dingley, Oct 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Chaddy2222

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
    > >w3 must be having something.

    >
    > You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
    > pitiful.
    >
    > The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
    > book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
    > achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
    > http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/


    Good one. Out of the many positive things which speak for
    themselves, I was reminded of something that is an irritating
    design fault, which this url is a very very mild case of. It is
    tiresome to be having to click next buttons when you want to
    simply read a lot of an article on line. It is a mild case
    becaiuse to be fair to the designer, he provides a fair chunk.
    Sites like How Stuff Work are infuriating in this regard, and
    there are many others as bad or worse. I can understand placing
    limits for bandwidth where there are a lot of pictures.

    Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
    limits before user *has* to press buttons. There are some very
    useful devices I use to go up and down, scroll wheels, up and
    down arrows on keyboard, page up and down buttons. Easier than
    the *interruptions* from locating visual buttons and clicking.

    At the very least, authors might consider providing a facility
    where the whole of an article can be read on line by simple
    scrolling. Authors often provide a print version, they might
    consider more often providing a "continuous" online version for
    those who would like such.

    (I have not read the URL here completely, I do not know if author
    raises this matter? As I say, his is a very minor irritation, I
    might be a little unusual in this regard? But thegeneral point I
    make is good.)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Chaddy2222

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
    <> wrote:

    >Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
    >limits before user *has* to press buttons.


    Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
    Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
    too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
    duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
    linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !

    http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/
    Andy Dingley, Oct 5, 2007
    #8
  9. Chaddy2222

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
    > >limits before user *has* to press buttons.

    >
    > Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
    > Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
    > too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
    > duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
    > linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !
    >
    > http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/


    Yes, that's the way! An "entire article" button.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 5, 2007
    #9
  10. Chaddy2222

    Animesh K Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
    >> w3 must be having something.

    >
    > You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
    > pitiful.
    >
    > The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
    > book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
    > achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
    > http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/


    Thanks Andy and Karl! I will look into both the links at leisure. It
    sounds like fun to be accessible to a blind without actually talking
    with him.
    Animesh K, Oct 5, 2007
    #10
  11. On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
    > a lot of you would be interested.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4


    In a strictly legal sense this is really nothing. All it means is
    that they will go to trial. But Target will end up losing in the
    socialistic courts of California, and we will move one step closer to
    a bland vanilla world where there is no incentive to draw with color.

    You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
    make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
    about a second.

    Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
    plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
    leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
    end to some of this bullshit.
    Travis Newbury, Oct 5, 2007
    #11
  12. On Oct 4, 2:54 pm, Karl Groves <> wrote:
    > Not even close.http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/


    "These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using
    images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content
    more accessible to a wide audience."

    "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
    Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
    Travis Newbury, Oct 5, 2007
    #12
  13. Chaddy2222

    Phil Payne Guest

    > "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
    > Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.


    Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
    more accessible.

    A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
    Communicators?

    And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
    with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
    sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.

    Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
    actually disabled on this machine.

    I just tried to get an HPI check on a car using a handheld while
    standing on a dealer's forecourt. Can't do it - browser NEEDS Flash.
    Dumb, dumb, dumb. HPI's business went to Halfords instead.
    Phil Payne, Oct 5, 2007
    #13
  14. Chaddy2222

    SpaceGirl Guest

    On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <> wrote:
    > > "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
    > > Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.

    >
    > Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
    > more accessible.
    >
    > A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
    > Communicators?
    >
    > And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
    > with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
    > sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
    >
    > Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
    > actually disabled on this machine.


    That's an extremely ignorant statement.

    Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    statement.
    SpaceGirl, Oct 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Chaddy2222

    Phil Payne Guest

    > That's an extremely ignorant statement.

    > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    > statement.


    This is from IPSOS over a year ago:

    http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049

    "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
    have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
    at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
    driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
    Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
    longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
    males - typical of many new consumer technologies."

    Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
    other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
    overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
    browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
    Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.

    http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/ - find where it mentions
    Flash.

    Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
    that fools many site creator's clients.

    >From the Webmaster Guidelines:


    "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
    can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
    remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
    browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
    able to view that content either."

    Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
    market.
    Phil Payne, Oct 5, 2007
    #15
  16. Chaddy2222

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne <> wrote:
    > > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
    > > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    > > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    > > statement.

    >
    > This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
    >
    > http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
    >
    > "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
    > have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
    > at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
    > driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
    > Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
    > longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
    > males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
    >
    > Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
    > other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
    > overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
    > browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
    > Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
    >
    > http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
    > Flash.
    >
    > Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
    > that fools many site creator's clients.
    >
    > >From the Webmaster Guidelines:

    >
    > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
    > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
    > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
    > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
    > able to view that content either."
    >
    > Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
    > market.

    This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
    I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
    frequently on their mobile devices.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    Chaddy2222, Oct 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Chaddy2222

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 5 Oct, 12:58, Chaddy2222 <>
    wrote:

    > This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
    > I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
    > frequently on their mobile devices.


    Why? It's already happening in South Africa, and they've got equal
    distances, equally low technical-population densities, and far less
    money to do it with.
    Andy Dingley, Oct 5, 2007
    #17
  18. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <> wrote:
    >>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
    >>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.

    >> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
    >> more accessible.
    >>
    >> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
    >> Communicators?
    >>
    >> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
    >> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
    >> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
    >>
    >> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
    >> actually disabled on this machine.

    >
    > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
    >
    > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    > statement.
    >


    Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

    What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
    also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
    to get an updated one.

    I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
    sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
    graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
    this :)

    Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.

    ==================
    Jerry Stuckle, Oct 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Chaddy2222

    SpaceGirl Guest

    On Oct 5, 12:19 pm, Phil Payne <> wrote:
    > > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
    > > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    > > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    > > statement.


    > Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
    > other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
    > overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
    > browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
    > Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
    >
    > http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
    > Flash.
    >
    > Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
    > that fools many site creator's clients.


    Statements like this demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the
    technology itself.

    > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
    > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
    > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
    > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
    > able to view that content either."


    Search engines are machines. Bits of software. People are emotional,
    generally visual creatures, unlike search engine. A search engine
    understands text, based on rules. People understand colour, layout,
    motion and have emotional responses to these things. I would hope that
    designers build sites for people, not for search engines. A search
    engine is a means to an end (indexing, accessing a market I suppose),
    but once you have that precious visitor on your site that's when
    everything else becomes important.

    Flash is one way of presenting the sort of Rich Media that enables
    these "human" sites; there's nothing evil or irrelvant about Flash -
    it's just a tool. Just like HTML, or JPEG images, or AJAX or XML...

    Classing Flash as some sort of "bells and whistles" toy though is
    really to completely misunderstand the platform that it provides. This
    is not that unexpected - Flash has been really abused over the years,
    but over the last 18 months has really come into its own. Flash itself
    is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an extremely
    powerful programming language at its core. It leverage's the kind of
    functionality that can only be dreamed of with JS and traditional
    HTML.

    Here's the caveat though; Like any tool, you select what's best for
    the job at hand. Flash is not idea for all projects. Flash generally
    is not good for mobile platforms (yet) as they lack the horsepower to
    run the full version of Flash. In other words it's better to do it
    other ways.

    Also, you have to think how people use the WWW; it's a VERY big place,
    and there are a lot of differing browsers and technologies. While you
    should always make your content available to the largest numbers of
    people possible, focusing your projects on particular audiences is far
    more effective. In specific markets, Flash has almost 100% penetration
    (specifically, younger markets with money to spend), they are more
    likely to have Flash enabled, a broadband connection and be impressed/
    interested in rich content (video, animation, sound) - think online
    magazines, games sites, sites for bands.

    So... form over function? If that "form" provides a more relevant
    interface to your functionality, writing it off as irrelevant is
    seriously restricting the way you communicate with your audience.

    You can have the most functional web site on the planet, and it can
    fail because of band branding, or poor layout, or a competitor with a
    nicer looking site.

    It's dangerously naive to think that these things don't matter.

    > Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
    > market.


    BTW.... most smartphones support Flash.
    SpaceGirl, Oct 5, 2007
    #19
  20. Chaddy2222

    SpaceGirl Guest

    On Oct 5, 12:58 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne <> wrote:
    >
    > > > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
    > > > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
    > > > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
    > > > statement.

    >
    > > This is from IPSOS over a year ago:

    >
    > >http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049

    >
    > > "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
    > > have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
    > > at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
    > > driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
    > > Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
    > > longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
    > > males - typical of many new consumer technologies."

    >
    > > Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
    > > other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
    > > overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
    > > browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
    > > Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.

    >
    > >http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/-find where it mentions
    > > Flash.

    >
    > > Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
    > > that fools many site creator's clients.

    >
    > > >From the Webmaster Guidelines:

    >
    > > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
    > > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
    > > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
    > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
    > > able to view that content either."

    >
    > > Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
    > > market.

    >
    > This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
    > I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
    > frequently on their mobile devices.


    The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
    web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
    SpaceGirl, Oct 5, 2007
    #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. Samuël van Laere

    Good accessibility?

    Samuël van Laere, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    982
  2. inhahe
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,349
    Diez B. Roggisch
    Jan 28, 2005
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    319
    Steve Holden
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. jobs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    457
  5. mohit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    mohit
    Jan 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page