It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

J

Jerry Stuckle

Ben said:
Karl Groves wrote: [...]
It's painful to access many sites, it's true. But Google is fine. Some
sites have good mobile versions--Yahoo and the Washington Post, for
example. The downloadable version of Google Maps for Windows Mobile,
which pulls live data from the Internet, works really nicely on the
Treo. Wikipedia--with several skins available, I'm surprised one hasn't
been designed specifically for handheld devices, but in any event it
works well in IE on Windows Mobile when I set it to use One Column mode.
So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.

As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.

There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.

Sure, the same is true over here. But web access from a cell phone is slow.

But instant messaging is not using the web. And it has nothing to do
with the internet.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================
 
P

Phil Payne

Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone, don't
They have those pens you drag across the screen, like playing a Nintendo
DS. Easier than using a mouse.

Neither of my test phones do - the stylus approach is pretty much dead
over here. It's a shame, because I found Palm's "Graffiti" very easy
and quick to use.

Both the Nokia Communicator and the Siemens S65 use a thing a bit like
IBM's TrackPoint. I know the Siemens is very obsolete now - but it's
my "minimal capability" device at only 132 pixel width. The OpenWave
browser is pretty good - I've got a 2GB RS-MMC card in it with several
websites downloaded to it. The Communicator has Opera and a full
QWERTY keyboard, but the Siemens is a pain. Both have superb PC
packages that make effective management of them much easier.

In any group of five young teenagers seen on the street, three will be
texting. In any bus, one-third of the passengers. Most packages
include "free" minutes and "free" text messages - only two or three
offer "free" web access.

The US seems to have gone down the WiFi hotspot and laptop route.
Between here and my local pub (1/4 mile) there are three open WiFi
nets - I just take the Communicator out, open it, and go on the web.
No boot time, 200 hour battery life, fits in a pocket. Also makes
phone calls, sends and receives faxes (theoretically - haven't sent a
fax for years). Receives, edits and returns Word, Excel, Powerpoint,
etc.
 
B

Ben C

Ben C wrote: [...]
As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.

There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.

Sure, the same is true over here.

Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
on phones actually caught on.
But web access from a cell phone is slow. But instant messaging is
not using the web. And it has nothing to do with the internet.

I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.
 
W

William Gill

Neredbojias said:
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:00:16
GMT William Gill scribed:

Actually, I think there is.

Does an attorney, like anyone else, deserve to be paid for his work? Of
course. Does he deserve to be paid well? Well, probably, but "doing a
good job" comes into it. Does he deserve to be paid well enough to
compensate for the times he is not paid so well, including "the losers",
so to speak. Mmm, somewhat - the key being "within reason". Certainly
anyone in any profession has good and bad times. Now here comes the
killer - does he deserve a windfall based on his client's
pseudo-windfall? (ie: "I get a third.") Absolutely NOT. Simple. A
_reasonable_ bonus perhaps, but something like $20M+ for less than
one-man-year's worth of work is not what I consider equitable.

Of course, there are some so-called "sports" jocks making more. "The
ignorance of The People knows no bounds."

I agree with everything you say, but I don't see the "single simple
solution."

"Equitable", "within reason", or like the ADA says "reasonable
accommodations", are as subjective as "common sense." BTW expenses come
off the top, before "a third" is calculated.

Having dealt with many contracts, laws, lawyers,and judges over the
years I have developed a deep respect for the law of unintended
consequences. The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I hear
"that will be easy to fix."

Companies hire actuaries all the time to calculate their "exposures."
Some decide it's cheaper to produce an unsafe product, or skirt a law,
than it is to fix or prevent a problem. It's a numbers game, and
lawyers play it too. Assume for purposes of discussion, that we are
able to define "reasonable" attorney compensation. If a lawyer knows
he/she can make X dollars on one case or the same X dollars on another,
but the second will take more time and effort, which one do you think
he/she will take? Companies have lawyers; they know the kinds of cases
others will shy away from. Are you ready to grant them license to
disregard any laws that don't "cost" them, because no one can or will
"prove it?"

Let's put the principle in another context. I have a couple million
dollars. I can put it in a bank and it will produce a nice safe return,
or I can invest it in a business where, if I'm successful, I can make a
nice profit, and BTW create a few jobs. I could lose everything, but if
I COULD make enough to chance it, I might. Now someone says "hold on a
minute, you're not paying your fair share of taxes." Will that change
the equation, and possibly my mind? What about those people who needed
those jobs?

Elsewhere in this thread, someone suggests putting it all in the hands
of judges to throw out the "unreasonable." Though they can and do do
this now, I'm not sure I want all that power solely their hands, and if
you had seen SOME of the judges I have seen, you wouldn't want any of it
in their hands.

Bottom line, I think we agree in principle, but I'm more cautious about
the solution. I believe in asking "If it's so easy to fix, why hasn't
someone already fixed it?" The answer may be "No one has tried." or it
could be "This is how we fixed it!"
 
S

SpaceGirl

Ben said:
If I understood SpaceGirl it's a superset of ECMA-262 (which _is_
JavaScript) with some new bits bolted on recently that look a bit like
Java.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:

With ActionScript 2.0, developers could constrain variables to a
specific type by adding a type annotation so that type mismatch
errors could be found at compile-time. ActionScript 2.0 also
introduced class-based inheritance syntax so that developers could
create classes and interfaces, much as they would in class-based
languages such as Java and C++. This version conformed partially to
the ECMAScript Fourth Edition draft specification.

AS2 has been superseded. AS3 is a very strict/typed language, properly
structured and consistent. It feels a lot more like Java than JavaScript
(especially when when using classes, and the way you use objects).
C++ is quite a bit different: it's a machine-oriented language with
mostly value semantics and manual storage management.

To an extent AS3 is like this, although you are abstracted from memory
management and direct hardware calls - you can only work within the API
that AVM2 (the Flash Virtual Machine, inside Flash Player 9) so you are
restricted in that respect.

On the other hand... I'm not a programmer. I know AS3 and AS2 fairly
well because I want to create environments that cannot be achieved
through PhotoShop and Illustrator alone... I hate programming! But I
really like the logic layout of AS3. I know a couple of other languages
(ASP classic, a little PHP, a little Java) and AS3 is almost perfect for
me! It's focused on creating user experiences, and lacks the bloat of
Java. It's fast and small and fairly easy to learn, and works the same
(mostly) on all platforms.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 
D

dorayme

Karl Groves said:
I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..." is
probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could access the
web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've never done it
again.

It is a 'novelty experience'. I can see its use for train
time-tables and a few things I guess. But I doubt that most sites
are the sort that people would be bothered with on the train or
while waiting for the bus. I imagine human's are getting worse
eyesight over time these days, just as males are getting lower
sperm counts. This trend, if it is one, is sure to help the
process along.

(Travis! Boji! I am saying squinting at tiny screens will
accelerate poor eyesight, not lower your sperm count. Get a grip
will you please! Sorry Karl, I have taken these lads under my
wing and have to steer them at various stages.)
 
B

Ben C

AS2 has been superseded. AS3 is a very strict/typed language, properly
structured and consistent. It feels a lot more like Java than JavaScript
(especially when when using classes, and the way you use objects).

For better or for worse. I like JavaScript more than either Java or C++.
Static typing and excessive object-orientation are over-rated-- they're
not the silver bullets they're sold as that automatically make programs
more robust and easier to maintain.
To an extent AS3 is like this, although you are abstracted from memory
management and direct hardware calls - you can only work within the API
that AVM2 (the Flash Virtual Machine, inside Flash Player 9) so you are
restricted in that respect.

Those are both good restrictions though.
 
D

dorayme

Travis Newbury said:
Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.

I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash site"?

Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
site it is not.
 
D

dorayme

William Gill said:
Someone once said "The guitar is easy to play, poorly." That may be why
so many are willing to shell out the bucks to hear it played well.

As I once told a boss, "If this job was easy, you wouldn't need me.",
and I told a peer "If everyone was as smart as you, what would make you
so special?"

Having managed some very gifted individuals, I learned it is sometimes
difficult to maintain a line between instilling pride, and discouraging
arrogance.

Yes... I handle the situation by swinging violently between
exhibiting pride and arrogance. I have studied Aristotle's
Doctrine of the Mean intensely but it has not helped. It is
easier to give vent to both emotions at their extreme, now one,
now the other. <g>
 
P

Phil Payne

It is a 'novelty experience'. I can see its use for train
time-tables and a few things I guess.

Current implementations use either SMS or WAP. One example:

http://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/your_travel/buses/YourNextBus+On+Your+Mobile+Phone.htm

Here on my bus routes that's real time information - the buses carry
GPS transponders. If a bunch of kids walk up to a bus stop, one at
least will send in a text enquiry. This was a year ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358784.stm
But I doubt that most sites are the sort that people would be
bothered with on the train or while waiting for the bus.

No, because they're not designed for it. When JANET was connected to
ARPANET byy that 4800-baud transatlantic link no-one predicted
MySpace, YouTube or eBay. Don't judge the future either by what or
how current sites offer or by the capabilities of handsets either to
display or transfer.

Modern people (kids especially) don't want to put their lives on hold
just because there isn't a power socket nearby. There are
sociological implications - they don't need to be at home to make (or
especially receive) phone calls - soon they won't need to go home for
information either.
 
D

dorayme

Adrienne Boswell said:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme


No, IE7 conflicts with one of her faxing/scanning/copying toolbars. I'm
gradually introducing Firefox - Opera is just too much for her (at this
point).


You can always use a phone simulator like Openwave
<http://developer.openwave.com/dvl/> . It acts just like my Nokia
phone, and I can test things on my local machine, without the cost of
the phone.

Openwave® Phone Simulator 7.0, Version 7.0.107, is a
Windows-based application. And, for my Mac, thar's the rub. But I
suppose I could look to installing it on a Win box I have. Thanks
for this. I have it bookmarked.

I hope this software does not lull users into error by allowing
much bigger and better screens and button controls than are to be
found on real life mobiles that most people can afford?
 
W

William Gill

dorayme said:
Yes... I handle the situation by swinging violently between
exhibiting pride and arrogance. I have studied Aristotle's
Doctrine of the Mean intensely but it has not helped. It is
easier to give vent to both emotions at their extreme, now one,
now the other. <g>

Been there, done that! <g>
 
D

dorayme

Phil Payne said:
Don't judge the future either by what or
how current sites offer or by the capabilities of handsets either to
display or transfer.

You are right.

The knockout future development might be when someone can have a
mobile with a really decent screen: connected rolled up
"electronic paper"? Or perhaps more feasible, on glasses that
your wear, everything looking big.
 
S

SpaceGirl

Ben said:
For better or for worse.

For better, as it really encourages reuse and superclasses (classes of
classes etc).
I like JavaScript more than either Java or C++.
Static typing and excessive object-orientation are over-rated-- they're
not the silver bullets they're sold as that automatically make programs
more robust and easier to maintain.

Okay, keep in mind non-programmer writing this here:

I agree but you can easily re-type (is it called casting?) an object if
you need to, or use the generic object type of... Object :) It makes it
SO much easier to trace errors, and keeps the overheads down (AS3 is
much more efficient with correct typing, apparently, compared to AS2's
fairly loose approach).

OOPL does lead to somewhat easier to maintain code... as everything is
inherited, you can create your own classes for special objects - for
example extending a MovieClip object to add your own functionality. This
is externalized in as class file. So, you can reuse that class in as
many projects as you like, and if you improve that class or add new
functionality, all the other projects inherit the new functionality too.
also makes it much easier to break a project up into pieces if you are
working in a team. Of course the downside of this... it takes a little
longer to compile, and you have a lot more files to version control! (of
course, after compile, you just have the one .swf file)

The Event model has been seriously improved now. There are hundreds of
events that you can capture using a really nice new syntax:

objectName.addEventListener(EVENT_NAME, listenerHandler);

function listenerHandler(evt:Event):void {
// gets passed the event, now we can do anything we want with it

}

....which for someone like me who is not a hardcore programmer is SO much
easier to comprehend. There are now many, many EVENT_NAMEs that make sense.

They fixed the way you draw things now... none of the getLevel rubbish.
You can now build everything in a virtual space, and when you are ready
add it to the display object as a child. This means NOTHING is EVER
drawn without you telling it. Eg;

// start

myFancyClip:Sprite = new fancyClipFromLibrary();
myContainer:MovieClip = new MovieClip();


function createSomeClips():void {

with (myFancyClip) {
x = 100;
y = 100;
alpha = 0.5;
}

//...

myContainer.addChild(myFancyClip);
this.addChild(myContainer);

}

createSomeClips();

// end

Sooooooooo cool. Love it.

Those are both good restrictions though.

Yep. You do have access to some hardware; sound, web cams and
microphones. If they are present on the machine viewing the Flash movie,
you should be able to access them.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 
J

Jerry Stuckle

Ben said:
Ben C wrote: [...]
As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.

There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
Sure, the same is true over here.

Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
on phones actually caught on.

The U.S.
I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.

Which haven't caught on at all. No one I know accesses facebook, etc.
from a cell phone. Neither do they do any of the rest.

Those who need that access have blackberrys and wireless pda's. Some
even have wireless cards for their laptops. But no one I know is
accessing the web from their cell phones - at least not with any regularity.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

dorayme said:
Travis Newbury said:
I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash site"?

Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
site it is not.

And after it parses all the images it will be smaller then an html page?

Anyway here's a little Perl CGI parser that can read simple 3 field TSV(
Tab Separated Value) file to create pages, it's real tiny too but that's
not really the point is it...

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use CGI qw:)standard -no_xhtml);

my $me=$ENV{'SCRIPT_NAME'};
my $datafile='picturedb.tsv';
my $pixpath='http://www.example.com/pix/';

my $recno=$ENV{'QUERY_STRING'} ;
$recno=~s/[\D]*//g;
$recno=int($recno);

my ($rec, $count)=getRec($recno,$datafile);
my @fields=split("\t",$rec);
my $img=img({-src=>"$pixpath$fields[0]-1.jpg"});
my @links;
if($recno){
$links[0]=a({-href=>"$me?0"},'|&lt; First Image');
$links[1]=a({-href=>"$me?" . ($recno-1)},'&lt Previous Image');
}
if($recno < --$count){
push(@links, a({-href=>"$me?". ($recno+1)},'Next Image &gt;'));
push(@links, a({-href=>"$me?$count"},'Last Image &gt;|'));
}
my $linkbar=ul({-id=>"linkbar"},li([@links]));
my $headstuff=head(title($fields[1]),
Link({-rel=>'stylesheet',href=>'/styles/stylesheet.css',-type=>'text/css'}));

print
header,html($headstuff,body(h1($fields[1]),div({-id=>'pixbox'},$img,$fields[2]),$linkbar));

sub getRec{
my( $recno, $db )=@_;
open(DB, $db) || die "opening db file '$db' for reading\n$!";
my ($rec, $count, @buf);
# skip comment lines with leading '#' ';' or whitespace
@buf=grep /^[^#|;|\s]/, <DB>;
close(DB);
$count=@buf;
if($recno<$count){
$rec=$buf[$recno];
return ($rec,$count);
}
else{
return ('',$count);
}
}
 
P

Phil Payne

The knockout future development might be when someone can have a
mobile with a really decent screen: connected rolled up
"electronic paper"? Or perhaps more feasible, on glasses that
your wear, everything looking big.

Getting there:

http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/07/fujitsus-flexible-lcd-screen.php

You have to throw all assumptions away. Look at our clothing, for
instance. Outdoor clothing in the UK has already changed, as have
many tote bags, small rucksacs, etc., to add mesh pockets to cater for
the current fashion of carrying bottled water. If some future device
using a screen like this, 3G always-on, some for of neat input, etc.,
offers enough benefits to become fashionable then the current "it
doesn't fit in a pocket" will vanish.

Apple pulled a great stunt with the eraly iPods and their distinctive
earpieces. Even if you couldn't see the device itself, you could see
from the white earpieces they were using one. They should have done a
range of iPhone clothing.

1024x768 highly portable is not far off. And I really mean 3mm thick,
200 gramme, 3G always-on, days of battery life.
 
B

Ben C

Ben said:
Ben C wrote:
[...]
For better or for worse.

For better, as it really encourages reuse and superclasses (classes of
classes etc).

In theory, yes. Where it goes wrong I think is when it is encourages
people to design arbitrary class hierarchies, which either get
overcomplicated, or require constant and painstaking "refactoring" when
the requirements change.

One might say well that's just bad OO programming, not OO programming in
general. But that's a cop-out-- the real question is how hard or easy is
it to do good or bad OO programming.

OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
before they really know what they want to do yet.

It's supposed to protect against dreaded type mismatch errors-- you pass
the wrong type of object to a function by mistake-- but how often do
such errors actually really happen?
Okay, keep in mind non-programmer writing this here:

I agree but you can easily re-type (is it called casting?) an object if
you need to, or use the generic object type of... Object :) It makes it
SO much easier to trace errors, and keeps the overheads down (AS3 is
much more efficient with correct typing, apparently, compared to AS2's
fairly loose approach).

OOPL does lead to somewhat easier to maintain code... as everything is
inherited, you can create your own classes for special objects - for
example extending a MovieClip object to add your own functionality. This
is externalized in as class file. So, you can reuse that class in as
many projects as you like, and if you improve that class or add new
functionality, all the other projects inherit the new functionality too.
also makes it much easier to break a project up into pieces if you are
working in a team. Of course the downside of this... it takes a little
longer to compile, and you have a lot more files to version control!

Those aren't really downsides. Both are worth it if it's easier to
maintain or break up between a team.

[...]
The Event model has been seriously improved now. There are hundreds of
events that you can capture using a really nice new syntax:

objectName.addEventListener(EVENT_NAME, listenerHandler);

function listenerHandler(evt:Event):void {
// gets passed the event, now we can do anything we want with it

}

...which for someone like me who is not a hardcore programmer is SO much
easier to comprehend. There are now many, many EVENT_NAMEs that make sense.

I don't know what it was like before, but that looks OK. JavaScript DOM
events are just like that too. You get passed the event.

[...]
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:15:00
GMT Mark Goodge scribed:
That would be green squash, to you. Commonly used in vegetable growing
competitions in the UK.

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/giants/msg1101403219162.html

Sort of look like something from "The Day of the Triffids"...

Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are generally a
bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a grammatically-
challenged Australian with a logic-recognition problem. (Not mentioning
any names.)
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,906
Latest member
SkinfixSkintag

Latest Threads

Top