Triple-A conformance?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by T.J., Dec 14, 2003.

  1. T.J.

    T.J. Guest

    I am trying to create an accessible page and am trying to
    comply to all guidelines.
    Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from
    Bobby)
     
    T.J., Dec 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:brirqu$6ke$>
    T.J. said:

    > I am trying to create an accessible page and am trying to
    > comply to all guidelines.


    it could be argued that if a site claims AAA then it is not designed to
    be accessible but rather to comply with the guidelines as some
    guidelines hinder accessibility.

    so are you designing the site for your visitors or for a set of
    guidelines?

    which will visit the site more often, humans or a set of guidelines?

    > Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from
    > Bobby)


    http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/
    http://valet.webthing.com/access/

    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 09:30:52 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T.J.

    T.J. Guest

    "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:bris8b$3q3v9$-berlin.de...
    > in post <news:brirqu$6ke$>
    > T.J. said:
    >
    > > I am trying to create an accessible page and am trying to
    > > comply to all guidelines.

    >
    > it could be argued that if a site claims AAA then it is not designed to
    > be accessible but rather to comply with the guidelines as some
    > guidelines hinder accessibility.
    >
    > so are you designing the site for your visitors or for a set of
    > guidelines?
    >
    > which will visit the site more often, humans or a set of guidelines?
    >
    > > Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from
    > > Bobby)

    >
    > http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/
    > http://valet.webthing.com/access/
    >
    > --
    > brucie
    > 15/December/2003 09:30:52 am kilo


    Thanks for the reply,
    That's the problem I am having, I want the page to be usable
    and look ok, it looks almost impossible to have a decent page
    and have 100 per cent AAA conformity.
    I have already used A-Prompt which says the page meets triple-A
    approval, and yet it still fails at Bobby.
    It passes 508, I think I am going to have to settle on that, without
    changing the whole look of the page.
    (are you buttons brucie?)
     
    T.J., Dec 15, 2003
    #3
  4. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:britn7$cpp$>
    T.J. said:

    > That's the problem I am having, I want the page to be usable
    > and look ok, it looks almost impossible to have a decent page
    > and have 100 per cent AAA conformity.


    this one is "decent" and "looks ok": http://www.kitty5.com/
    googling for "Triple-A conformance" (or A,AA) will find others.

    > I have already used A-Prompt which says the page meets triple-A
    > approval, and yet it still fails at Bobby.


    bobby cant even prase valid html and reports errors where none exist so
    don't listen too carefully to it. design for your visitors not to
    appease a mindless script.

    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 10:05:29 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #4
  5. T.J.

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Nico Schuyt, Dec 15, 2003
    #5
  6. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:3fdd074d$0$425$>
    Nico Schuyt said:

    >> this one is "decent" and "looks ok": http://www.kitty5.com/


    > Isn't the font-size a bit too small


    way too small but at least if you choose to ignore the sizes it isn't an
    issue.

    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 11:14:27 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #6
  7. brucie <> wrote:

    >> That's the problem I am having, I want the page to be usable
    >> and look ok, it looks almost impossible to have a decent page and
    >> have 100 per cent AAA conformity.

    >
    > this one is "decent" and "looks ok": http://www.kitty5.com/


    Decency is in the eye of the beholder, but since you implicitly claim
    that the page is AAA conformant, it needs to be noted that it violates
    WAI guidelines in a rather obvious way - though "accessibility
    checkers" will miss even such obvious points.

    Checkpoint 7.3 says: "Until user agents allow users to freeze moving
    content, avoid movement in pages." This alone makes the page lack AAA
    conformance, and even AA conformance.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 15, 2003
    #7
  8. "T.J." <> wrote:

    > I have already used A-Prompt which says the page meets triple-A
    > approval, and yet it still fails at Bobby.


    You need to decide what you really want:
    (1) A page that is as accessible to anyone as possible.
    (2) A page that meets triple-A criteria of WAI guidelines.
    (3) A page that is approved at triple-A level by some program.

    These are all different things, though not completely unrelated.
    Besides, within (3) there is a potentially infinite number of choices.

    The short advice is:

    Ignore Bobby. Use A-Prompt with discretion and only to the extent that
    you understand what it says and how that actually contributes to
    helping the disabled and the elderly access your pages. Ditto for WAI
    guidelines.

    Some longer notes on accessibility checkers:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 15, 2003
    #8
  9. T.J.

    T.J. Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9452541B8E298jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > "T.J." <> wrote:
    >
    > > I have already used A-Prompt which says the page meets triple-A
    > > approval, and yet it still fails at Bobby.

    >
    > You need to decide what you really want:
    > (1) A page that is as accessible to anyone as possible.
    > (2) A page that meets triple-A criteria of WAI guidelines.
    > (3) A page that is approved at triple-A level by some program.
    >
    > These are all different things, though not completely unrelated.
    > Besides, within (3) there is a potentially infinite number of choices.
    >
    > The short advice is:
    >
    > Ignore Bobby. Use A-Prompt with discretion and only to the extent that
    > you understand what it says and how that actually contributes to
    > helping the disabled and the elderly access your pages. Ditto for WAI
    > guidelines.
    >
    > Some longer notes on accessibility checkers:
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html
    >


    Thank you,
    That was the conclusion I was coming to,
    use A-Prompt but not be to concerned if the
    page fails at Bobby.
     
    T.J., Dec 15, 2003
    #9
  10. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns94525362B1B8Bjkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31>
    Jukka K. Korpela said:

    >> this one is "decent" and "looks ok": http://www.kitty5.com/


    > Decency is in the eye of the beholder, but since you implicitly claim
    > that the page is AAA conformant, it needs to be noted that it violates
    > WAI guidelines in a rather obvious way - though "accessibility
    > checkers" will miss even such obvious points.
    >
    > Checkpoint 7.3 says: "Until user agents allow users to freeze moving
    > content, avoid movement in pages." This alone makes the page lack AAA
    > conformance, and even AA conformance.


    i wasn't aware there was any movement on the page. it seems my UA allows
    me to freeze moving content.

    does "Until user agents" mean every single one used or the majority or
    just some? i don't believe much thought was used when whoever it was
    thought up the term "until user agents".

    you could say selecting the text version of the page allows you to not
    only freeze the moving content but completely remove it if your UA
    doesn't support freezing moving content.

    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 05:48:14 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #10
  11. T.J. wrote:

    > Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from Bobby)


    These automated checkers are OK to point out some glaring problems, but to
    properly make sure your site complies with any set of accessibility
    guidelines, you should print the list of checkpoints off and go through
    them with a red pen checking each point and marking it "pass", "fail" or
    "not applicable".

    Any that you fail, fix, then check everything again from the top.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 15, 2003
    #11
  12. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:p>
    Toby A Inkster said:

    >> Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from Bobby)


    > These automated checkers are OK to point out some glaring problems, but to
    > properly make sure your site complies with any set of accessibility
    > guidelines, you should print the list of checkpoints off and go through
    > them with a red pen checking each point and marking it "pass", "fail" or
    > "not applicable".
    >
    > Any that you fail, fix, then check everything again from the top.


    and then abduct a few people (or 2.99Kg from the local supermarket) with
    disabilities to test the site. until it is tested with real live
    disabled people you cant claim the site is accessible, just your "best
    guess" says it should be.

    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 07:01:36 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #12
  13. T.J.

    jake Guest

    In message <brjthr$44mul$-berlin.de>, brucie
    <> writes
    >in post <news:p>
    >Toby A Inkster said:
    >
    >>> Are there any other AAA compliancy checkers (apart from Bobby)

    >
    >> These automated checkers are OK to point out some glaring problems, but to
    >> properly make sure your site complies with any set of accessibility
    >> guidelines, you should print the list of checkpoints off and go through
    >> them with a red pen checking each point and marking it "pass", "fail" or
    >> "not applicable".
    >>
    >> Any that you fail, fix, then check everything again from the top.

    >
    >and then abduct a few people (or 2.99Kg from the local supermarket) with
    >disabilities to test the site. until it is tested with real live
    >disabled people you cant claim the site is accessible, just your "best
    >guess" says it should be.
    >

    But if you can't (e.g. your local by-laws don't allow for abductions),
    test the site yourself with a modern/popular screen-reader or voice
    browser -- with your screen switched off and using the keyboard for
    navigation and input.

    Not ideal (as you already know the layout of your site), but not a bad
    substitute.

    regards.
    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Dec 15, 2003
    #13
  14. brucie <> wrote:

    > does "Until user agents" mean every single one used or the majority
    > or just some?


    "Checkpoints that contain the phrase 'until user agents ..." require
    content developers to provide additional support for accessibility
    until most user agents readily available to their audience include
    the necessary accessibility features."
    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#until-user-agents

    A bit vague. But the problem of interpretation is fairly irrelevant as
    long as the dominant browser lacks the necessary features.

    > i don't believe much thought was used when whoever it
    > was thought up the term "until user agents".


    I would say that there was quite some thought, but it did not culminate
    in a crystallized consensus expressed in an accessible language.

    > you could say selecting the text version of the page allows you to
    > not only freeze the moving content but completely remove it if your
    > UA doesn't support freezing moving content.


    You could, but that's surely not the idea. Otherwise it would be
    irrelevant to have any accessibility requirements concerning images
    themselves (as opposite to providing textual alternatives), since you
    could always say that you can view the page without images if you
    cannot e.g. distinguish red from green.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 15, 2003
    #14
  15. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns945297FC253AAjkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31>
    Jukka K. Korpela said:

    >> does "Until user agents" mean every single one used or the majority
    >> or just some?


    > "Checkpoints that contain the phrase 'until user agents ..." require
    > content developers to provide additional support for accessibility
    > until most user agents readily available to their audience include
    > the necessary accessibility features."
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#until-user-agents
    >
    > A bit vague.


    its more than a bit. sounds like it was written for a politician.

    > But the problem of interpretation is fairly irrelevant as
    > long as the dominant browser lacks the necessary features.


    is that the dominant browser over all, the dominant browser in your
    stats or the dominant browser for your target audience? how much is
    dominant, 60% or maybe 80% to cover for inaccuracies in the stats?

    the dominant browser for my site as shown in my stats and therefore
    "readily available to their [my] audience" can freeze movable content so
    i could claim AAA whereas someone else for the exact same content
    couldn't.

    >> you could say selecting the text version of the page allows you to
    >> not only freeze the moving content but completely remove it if your
    >> UA doesn't support freezing moving content.


    > You could, but that's surely not the idea.


    i believe its a valid option to comply with the guidelines ("require
    content developers to provide additional support") the same as supplying
    the option of turning css off (removing it) server side if the UA cant
    do it to present a plain text version of a site if the visitor wants it.


    --
    brucie
    15/December/2003 11:52:37 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #15
  16. brucie <> wrote:

    >> But the problem of interpretation is fairly irrelevant as long as
    >> the dominant browser lacks the necessary features.

    >
    > is that the dominant browser over all, the dominant browser in your
    > stats or the dominant browser for your target audience?


    I meant IE, of course. It has poor or no controls for moving or
    flickering content, so the situation is pretty clear. Surely sufficient
    browser support would be much more than just the most common browser,
    but definitely not less.

    > how much is
    > dominant, 60% or maybe 80% to cover for inaccuracies in the stats?


    How accessible do you want to be? And statistics are rather irrelevant
    here. Accessibility is primarily a minority issue, often dealing with
    relatively small minorities (like 0,1 %, which makes only a few million
    people). What matters is what those people use for which accessibility
    is most crucial. I think we need the W3C WAI group to tell us what the
    situation is, before we can regard the "until user agents..." rules as
    outdated. They've effectively said that about the rule that tells us to
    put nonempty placeholders into text input fields until user agents can
    handle empty fields well. (That particular rule was bad from the very
    beginning, but I digress.) But not about most other such rules.

    > the dominant browser for my site as shown in my stats and therefore
    > "readily available to their [my] audience" can freeze movable
    > content so i could claim AAA whereas someone else for the exact
    > same content couldn't.


    If you wish to limit the audience to people using some particular
    browser, I don't think you are taking the accessibility road.

    > i believe its a valid option to comply with the guidelines
    > ("require content developers to provide additional support") the
    > same as supplying the option of turning css off (removing it)
    > server side if the UA cant do it to present a plain text version of
    > a site if the visitor wants it.


    Sorry, but that does not quite parse. It might help if you could afford
    some more capital letters and even some punctuation characters. Anyway,
    CSS capabilities sniffing is a rather poor idea, and plain text is even
    poorer - contrary to popular belief, plain text versions are generally
    _hostile_ to accessibility and usually reflect a complete
    misunderstanding of what accessibility is about.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 15, 2003
    #16
  17. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns9452AE5157E13jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31>
    Jukka K. Korpela said:

    > Sorry, but that does not quite parse. It might help if you could afford
    > some more capital letters and even some punctuation characters.


    my contract clearly states i do not have to make sense.

    > Anyway, CSS capabilities sniffing is a rather poor idea,


    i wasn't suggesting sniffing. i was suggesting that providing
    "additional support for accessibility" such as links which work with any
    UA to turn things on and off makes much more sense than avoiding
    something "until user agents" which may never occur.


    --
    brucie
    16/December/2003 01:46:14 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 15, 2003
    #17
  18. brucie wrote:

    > in post <news:brirqu$6ke$>
    > T.J. said:
    >
    >
    >>I am trying to create an accessible page and am trying to
    >>comply to all guidelines.

    >
    >
    > it could be argued that if a site claims AAA then it is not designed to
    > be accessible but rather to comply with the guidelines as some
    > guidelines hinder accessibility.


    I know the guidelines are rather unusable/draconian for AAA, but how do
    they hinder accessibility?
     
    JustAnotherGuy, Dec 16, 2003
    #18
  19. T.J.

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:brm8df$4omjp$-berlin.de>
    JustAnotherGuy said:

    [WCAG]

    > I know the guidelines are rather unusable/draconian for AAA, but how do
    > they hinder accessibility?


    i would like to tell you but it always results in a battle of biblical
    proportions and many bloody deaths.

    --
    brucie
    16/December/2003 04:51:35 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 16, 2003
    #19
  20. Toby A Inkster, Dec 16, 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. EN
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,142
    Mark Parnell
    May 5, 2006
  2. Amarendra GODBOLE
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    691
    Dan Pop
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. Brian van den Broek
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    763
    Brian van den Broek
    Apr 19, 2005
  4. c library conformance testing

    , Dec 1, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
  5. Ganesh
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    1,987
    John Hosking
    Sep 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page