It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

[Travis Newbury]

And you tell me what that has to do with his opinion - or your refusal
to answer.
You're just a troll trying to deflect the question.

Ask the question if you want an answer.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
about catching up.

Great one Ben! I like how you put that! MS sure seams like the whiny
child that goes ragdoll in the supermarket and is dragged along by his
parents. If they'd pick up the pace a bit would make our jobs easier and
our code a lot more elegant.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.

And you seem to be afraid of the answer I may give if you actually ASK
a question

Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.

Then stop pussy footing around and just ask the question Jerry.
Unless you are afraid of the answer. You seem to be evading asking
the question you so often refer to. Ask it! I am begging you, for
the love of God just ask your stupid question!

 

[Travis Newbury]

I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather.

Thank you! ;-)

But
speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
do? Considering that you don't even know me??????

Did you not state that you were not a flash developer earlier in this
thread? I thought you did. Anyway, what I was referring to was if
you are not a developer in both Flash and HTML/CSS, then you would not
be qualified to say which would be faster to develop a site with.
that's all.

While it may or may not be quicker to do it in Flash, it would cost a
lot less in legal fees to just do it in HTML, sure it gets rid of a
lot of things but if this Target case goes ahead those type of sites
will be screwed. Also considering the previous case law on web
accessibility it sets a pressident (spelling). It's been a few years
since I did legal studies.

I find it interesting in the article about this case. Target states
that their site IS accessible based on current US laws. The judge in
California just stated that she was going to leave it to a jury to
decide. I believe that information is in the OP's link.

BTW, I think with the changes in web technologies my skills will
continue to change over time.
As an example of this a few years ago I did not even know what CSS or
HTML was!.

I completely agree. if you don';t continue to learn then you end up
closing a lot of doors.

Isn't everyone!.

indubitably....

 

[Travis Newbury]

Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.

How can I refute a premise that is based on an opinion and not on
facts?

He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
point. Just like a troll.

No, I have been asking you continually to ask your question (even
Chaddy has no clue what question you are talking about). But you
continue to refuse to ask it, and just start yelling "troll troll..."
Hmmmm... Changing the subject... Where have I heard that before....

Can you just ask it?

 

[Chaddy2222]

How can I refute a premise that is based on an opinion and not on
facts?


No, I have been asking you continually to ask your question (even
Chaddy has no clue what question you are talking about). But you
continue to refuse to ask it, and just start yelling "troll troll..."
Hmmmm... Changing the subject... Where have I heard that before....

Can you just ask it?

Hmmm, well to make things a bit more simple, from what I can gather
his question was probably a long the lines of HTML and a server side
language being better for the design of the particular site as written
about in the above posts.

 

[SpaceGirl]

There's no such thing as "unlimited data". Contracts that offer it are
either subject to a "Fair Use Policy" (which simply means that there
is a limit, but they won't tell you what it is) or they're on
contended bandwidth (which means there is a limit, but they don't know
what it is either).

In my experience, "unlimited" tariffs are more common on consumer
contracts, partly because consumers are less likely to be tech-savvy
enough to realise that "unlimited" doesn't mean there aren't any
limits and partly because consumers are less likely to push the device
to its limits anyway. Business users, on the other hand, tend to want
to know exactly what their limits are, and to have an SLA that
guarantees they'll be able to use everything up to the limit.

Mark

Effectively unlimited Yes all contracts tend to have fair usage -
even my 20Mbit cable at home has that, but we never even come close to
their "warning" level (around 10Gb a day, or 4Gb between 6pm and
midnight, which would result in my connection being throttled for 12
hours). I really cant imagine hitting the limits of an iPhone - if I
want to download THAT much data, I'll use my laptop or Mac Pro at home.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[SpaceGirl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:45:00
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:


Hmm, a bit cheaper in the US. (8gb iPhone: $399; all data, 450 mins, 200
texts: $59.99)

You have to keep in mind how worthless the USD is right now, so not sure
what that works out in real terms. If this was 1.5 years ago, in UK
money it would be around $55 a month plus $480 for the phone.

I keep forgetting how much women like to yak...

Oy

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[SpaceGirl]

No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
a bit suspect.

Nah I'm quite aware of the history, Microsoft of course did abuse their
position, but OS software didn't really help either.

It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
direction. They are doing a good job.

They ARE doing a good job, yes. I'm not going to have a go at Mozilla, I
think they do amazing work. But, innovation rarely comes from Open
Source. It's the nature of the beast - PROGRAMMERS not UI or HID experts
design these programs. When dealing with humans, the UI should come
first, the programmy stuff last.

There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
in places they aren't always that easy to follow. But this improves with
every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.

This is true, but it's to slow. WWW is moving SO fast now, the market is
streaming ahead of what OS can keep up with. Where are the altneratives
to Flash? Where are these miracle browsers that meet all the standards?
Where's the innovation? Answer: Closed source. Adobe. Microsoft.

I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
about catching up.

Yeah probably


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[SpaceGirl]

Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are doing a
totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where they include
statements something like "...the useragent may determine how it responds
to this condition by..." When one endeavors to set standards, there is no
place for ambiguity. In addition, their box model sucks and the whole
"dom" thing (as now implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some
quirky digital primeval foible.

That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But you
are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed, very
hard to understand.

Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!

Yeah kinda crazy. The XHTML1.0 standards have been around since 1999 -
not ONE major browser supports the full spec yet. Not a single one! In
EIGHT years!? So much for standards... They do get 99% of it right, but
it's just... a mess really.

<quote>"It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application installed
on the client side. It is simply much easier to install browser-based
applications using technology such as Flex than any technology that
Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have nightmares over failed .Net
installs that would take out other client applications when trying to
install our own software in my previous job."</quote>

Or AIR... that looks promising (if it gets pst the whole "who the hell
will install this anyway? hurdle).



--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[SpaceGirl]

You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
example of this too)

You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.

Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.

Look up FlashPaper, you may be surprised.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[Chaddy2222]

Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?) Each
of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in) I
believe these are considered real world systems that people use every
day.

I think with these examples where getting back to designing depending
on the target market again, some sites can use it and get away with
it.

Why yes, that is the trend we are seeing... (There was some sarcasm in
there)

Hmm, actually I think as more people download IE 7 that might not be
the case as it does not have as many of the cicurity issues.

Chaddy you and jerry are pretty much ignorant when it comes to Flash
aren't you?

Well actually, I am aware that Flash has accessibility features built-
in, but for simple sites such as the one before in this thread it more
benofficial from a DDA pov to just use plain old HTML and CSS.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Well actually, I am aware that Flash has accessibility features built-
in, but for simple sites such as the one before in this thread it more
benofficial from a DDA pov to just use plain old HTML and CSS.

Speaking of the Target site. Does it even use Flash for essential
parts of the site? I know they use it on the main page to display a
slide show with links to products, but that is not needed to navigate
the site or buy something.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hmmm, well to make things a bit more simple, from what I can gather
his question was probably a long the lines of HTML and a server side
language being better for the design of the particular site as written
about in the above posts.

And I do not disagree with that if you qualify it to mean "essential
items". Remember Target claims they do meet all the US requirements
for the site, and the Flash they use is slide show eye candy.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.

It ain't an experience (or at least a good one) if one cannot access it!

Adobe's own example...

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
Macromedia - FlashPaper 2 : Examples

1) Opera's screen reader gives me a "Sorry I Do Not Understand" when
selecting this "FlashPaper" for reading so I can only assume a screen
reader will also fail...have to have Chad check it I think he has Jaws...

2) The lousy, 2.5kb of text took a noticeable time to load, yes I know I
am slow with dialup, but why would I wish to add the overhead? Just to
preserve the 3 columns?

3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
paper. That's the problem the web is not paper. Zoom is not equal to
increasing the font. If the view port is small you find yourself
up-down-right-left jocking around a peep hole.

4) In the zooming process I do not see the text as clearly as the
regular text of the surrounding HTML. I appears like a bit mapped image
of a page....

Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.

Only if you build one of those nasty Adobe GoLive image slice sites! (In
all fairness GoLive is not the only "WebEditor" to create such sites,
but when you stumble upon one, peeking at the source usually reveals the
culprit.

Look up FlashPaper, you may be surprised.

 

[SpaceGirl]

It ain't an experience (or at least a good one) if one cannot access it!

Adobe's own example...

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
Macromedia - FlashPaper 2 : Examples

1) Opera's screen reader gives me a "Sorry I Do Not Understand" when
selecting this "FlashPaper" for reading so I can only assume a screen
reader will also fail...have to have Chad check it I think he has Jaws...

Please do, it works.

There's also an Adobe paper on it:

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2006/08/moving_screen_reader_focus_in.html

This was pre Flash 9 of course.

2) The lousy, 2.5kb of text took a noticeable time to load, yes I know I
am slow with dialup, but why would I wish to add the overhead? Just to
preserve the 3 columns?

Because FP does something else. But you're being closed minded again.
Yes there is an overhead, but there are lots of benefits that outweigh
the marginal overhead.... but I'm tired of spelling everything out,
you'll come up with some other reason Why It Is Bad

3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
paper. That's the problem the web is not paper.

Says who? You? So, you are forcing YOUR limited view of what you think
the web should be on everyone else? I think finally we get to the heart
of the issue.

Zoom is not equal to
increasing the font. If the view port is small you find yourself
up-down-right-left jocking around a peep hole.

Same question: PDF? Word documents? Excel documents? Movie files?

4) In the zooming process I do not see the text as clearly as the
regular text of the surrounding HTML. I appears like a bit mapped image
of a page....

IYO I guess. It looks smooth to me.

Only if you build one of those nasty Adobe GoLive image slice sites! (In
all fairness GoLive is not the only "WebEditor" to create such sites,
but when you stumble upon one, peeking at the source usually reveals the
culprit.

?!

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

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

 

[Mark Goodge]

Mark Goodge wrote:

Effectively unlimited Yes all contracts tend to have fair usage -
even my 20Mbit cable at home has that, but we never even come close to
their "warning" level (around 10Gb a day, or 4Gb between 6pm and
midnight, which would result in my connection being throttled for 12
hours). I really cant imagine hitting the limits of an iPhone -

Well, no, especially since it isn't 3G and you can't use Bluetooth to
network it with your laptop, so you're never going to want to download
much data with it

Mark

 

[Karl Groves]

You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.

Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.

Accessible for who?
First, I've yet to see accessible flash.
AT support for Flash is terribly spotty, so the amount of work required to
make accessible Flash is bigger than most Flash developers want to deal
with. On the upside, the ability for Flash to be self voicing is super
cool, as is the ability to do your own captioning and all of that. There's
a lot of other possibilities with Flash (and flex) like providing tab index
and so on. But again, where are the accessible Flash websites? Simply
saying it is possible isn't enough.

 

[Red E. Kilowatt]

I think with these examples where getting back to designing depending
on the target market again, some sites can use it and get away with
it.

Indeed. Reading this thread leaves me wondering how anyone who claims to
be an expert would not understand that any notions of usability depend
entirely on the target audience.

Also, it seem silly to me to be arguing about it so much. Reminds me of
a somewhat famous quote to the effect that you cannot convince someone
of the rightness of something if his income is dependant on him not
understanding.

 

[dorayme]

Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
libritarian.

This is going into the collection like all the other stuff...