Accessibility and the law

irvin wrote:
[snip]

Accessibility is far more complex that Joe Clark's myopic scare
tactics. Accessibility is far more complex than making your site
available to the blind.
[snip]

What myopic scare tactics are those? What he did in that appendix was document
some facts about legislation. (I've read that appendix. Has everyone here?) He
is certainly * not* myopic!

One of the most amusing things I have read recently was this chapter from the
same book - now is this myopic? (It is more that just that appendix!)
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter10.html

<extract>
Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
reality check, shall we?

Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
indeed.)

Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
up tabular material or for layout purposes." Web designers who used tables for
page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
sin.

Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.
Back to the HTML 3.2 spec: "A cell can contain a wide variety of other block-
and text-level elements including form fields and other tables." The fact that
nested tables take longer to display in a graphical browser is surely
undesirable, but you cannot ascribe that behaviour to the inevitable effect of
illegal coding. Nested tables have always been legal.

The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.

In fact, the strongest condemnation of tables in the WAI is as follows: "Do
not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized."
Linearizing refers to running the contents of cells together with no row or
column structure. (How? In languages reading from left to right, start with
the top row and read left to right. Then, in each successive row, concatenate
cells in left-to-right order.)

The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend. Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
tables in this chapter.
</extract>

Monopolies and organisations that make a significant impact on public service
*do* need to cater for disadvantaged people, because if they don't, who will?
But it must focus on access - not irrelevant techniques. What he appears to be
trying to do is sort out the facts from the myths. That is good.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

djinn wrote:

Osgood wrote:
|| These minority sections of society seem to be carrying around a big
|| chip on their shoulders, I guess they have nothing more important in
|| life to do but whinge all the time.

Boy - that's a sweeping statement!!

I reckon that the % of those whether in a minority or not predisposed to
whingeing would be the same - no?

Some of us bury their heads in the sand, I choose not to.

Barry Pearson wrote:

irvin wrote:
[snip]

Accessibility is far more complex that Joe Clark's myopic scare
tactics. Accessibility is far more complex than making your site
available to the blind.

[snip]

What myopic scare tactics are those? What he did in that appendix was document
some facts about legislation. (I've read that appendix. Has everyone here?) He
is certainly * not* myopic!

One of the most amusing things I have read recently was this chapter from the
same book - now is this myopic? (It is more that just that appendix!)
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter10.html

extract
Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
reality check, shall we?

Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
indeed.)

Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
up tabular material or for layout purposes." Web designers who used tables for
page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
sin.

Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.
Back to the HTML 3.2 spec: "A cell can contain a wide variety of other block-
and text-level elements including form fields and other tables." The fact that
nested tables take longer to display in a graphical browser is surely
undesirable, but you cannot ascribe that behaviour to the inevitable effect of
illegal coding. Nested tables have always been legal.

The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.

In fact, the strongest condemnation of tables in the WAI is as follows: "Do
not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized."
Linearizing refers to running the contents of cells together with no row or
column structure. (How? In languages reading from left to right, start with
the top row and read left to right. Then, in each successive row, concatenate
cells in left-to-right order.)

The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend. Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
tables in this chapter.
/extract

Monopolies and organisations that make a significant impact on public service
*do* need to cater for disadvantaged people, because if they don't, who will?
But it must focus on access - not irrelevant techniques. What he appears to be
trying to do is sort out the facts from the myths. That is good.

Good thinking

Joost

This thread of discussion all about Accessibility issue is a full of fatal joke, to be honest with you, in my humble opinion.

I have seen it all, heard all about it so many times every day entirely in my lifetime on this earthly life. No offense intended whatsoever at all. It is rather ingorance and an attitude. Ingorance is very dangerous term we use these days.

However, I certainly understand some share of frustration, anger and all that. You are not alone. Because not everyone understand this issue about accessible. Because some of you have not been exposed to such disabled individual in your life. It might be somewhat navite for some, not so at all for others.

All I am asking for your willing to be open-mind and keep open to anything possible. Be willing to learn new things that you never learned. Enuf about babbling about that.

If we look at a bit of history about accessibility and how it started. If you guys know about former President Richard Nixion, he was one who started this law by sign it into law of 1972 (I believe that was the year that he signed it into law). It was pretty much fundamental civil rights of disabled act of 1970's. This law requires ALL states and federal governments and agencies that get federal dollars, then it must be accessible including ramp, special reading materials for visually impaired individuals, interpreters for the deaf at certain agencies. That applies to all school districts, universities and all -- the ones that got federal dollars.

It is slowly shaping the soceity and often misunderstood and neglence on many others. And then, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-226, which was signed into law by First former President G. W. Bush, on 26 July 1990. ADA requires virtually all public accommodations (airports, hotels, libraries, and even employers and so on). Even though, it is being misunderstood and misleading by others. It has a lot to do lack of understanding, efforts, and lack of open-minds by some able-bodied society.

ADA doesn't say that virtually all websites MUST be accessible. Only federal and state governments and its agencies are required to offer accessible websites. Unless note otherwise, as required by law, for certain public entity that received federal dollars, it is expected to offer accessible websites.

It is so often misunderstood and misled by others. I personally cannot speak for everyone here at MM online discussions either. Based on my personal experience during my lifetime. If you don't like what I said in some aspect, then you have some problem. You need to adjust some attitude and be a bit more at least open-mind and be willing to change a bit. If you do, the better you'd be in a long run. Hoever, you don't have to agree everything what I said here. You are entitled to your own opinion.

And bottomline, I was somewhat a bit offended by some rude remarks and insulting words here. Those who did write rather insulting remarks, you should offer some apologies. It is quite a shame and a drag!

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote

Sam,

my sites are fully accessible already. It wasn't hard at all.

I'd take a closer look at: http://www.pixel69.com/portfolio.cfm


--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

SamMan wrote:

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btu5if$3d0$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Sam,

my sites are fully accessible already. It wasn't hard at all.


I'd take a closer look at: http://www.pixel69.com/portfolio.cfm

Out of curiosity, I checked it and it seems to comply with Section 508
guidelines. There are a few warnings, but no failures, and the warnings
seem to be easily defensible. Did I miss something?

--
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The PVII Newsgroup | news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev
The CSS Newsgroup | news://forums.projectseven.com/css
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean, simple code is the best bet at having site accessible to those who
truly want to access it.

:-)


--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




Al Sparber- PVII wrote:

SamMan wrote:
"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btu5if$3d0$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Sam,

my sites are fully accessible already. It wasn't hard at all.


I'd take a closer look at: http://www.pixel69.com/portfolio.cfm

Out of curiosity, I checked it and it seems to comply with Section 508
guidelines. There are a few warnings, but no failures, and the
warnings seem to be easily defensible. Did I miss something?

I ran the page through a validator, and to be honest, it did, for the most
part do OK.

The one thing that I did notice however, even before I ran it was that each
site link opened a new window without notifying the user this would happen.

What is the big deal about this?

Consider a blind user selects one of the links, they "look" through the
first page that comes up and then want to go back to the original page. As
much as they try, they never get back to where they think they should.
Similar situation with a user with cognitive impairments. It is possible
that even if they are sighted, they may not realize a new window has opened
(even though it may be obvious to you and I), and become increasingly
frustrated that they can't navigate back to where they were. Taking this one
step further, they may become so confused as to think that their computer
has locked up and reboot. In both cases, this could have been avoided by
placing some text on the page alerting the user a new window will open when
one of the links are selected. The page looks exactly the same, only with
the addition of 5 words: "Links open a new window".

I have been a first-hand witness to a blind user trying to navigate such a
page. They were totally confused until a sighted person pointed out to them
that a new window had opened. As you can expect, they were not too happy...

It was stated that "my sites are fully accessible already".... While this
one is accessible to a point, it is not "fully".

Nice graphics, by the way... no really!


--
SamMan
Rip it to reply


"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote

Clean, simple code is the best bet at having site accessible to those who
truly want to access it.

:-)


--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
SamMan wrote:
"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btu5if$3d0$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Sam,

my sites are fully accessible already. It wasn't hard at all.


I'd take a closer look at: http://www.pixel69.com/portfolio.cfm

Out of curiosity, I checked it and it seems to comply with Section 508
guidelines. There are a few warnings, but no failures, and the
warnings seem to be easily defensible. Did I miss something?

Sam:

thanks for the compliments.

***
On the topic:

I have my own definition of "accessibility", as you can probably see from my
posts in this thread.

I'm not interested in having a "W3C VALID" little blemish on my pages. I
don't think deprecating the "target" attribute of the <a> tag is very smart.
I couldn't care less about "BOBBY" and the people profitting from selling
the dream of the "universal" site. I know better than that.

But most importantly, my site does NOT cater to the blind. I don't think it
is of interest to blind people, to be honest. I have it so that potential
clients (people who have contacted me ALREADY - I don't EVER solicit work)
can get a general idea of what I do and what they can expect should they
decide to work with me.

This also means you won't get metatags beyond the basic ones. I'm not
interested in "Search Engine Placement". I'm not interested in getting a
client in Tibet.

You won't get type you'll easily enlarge in Internet Explorer. It's my
desire that people view the site as I created it.

My site is just a little brochure, for business purposes exclusively. I
don't think my site is of any interest to anyone other than me and my
clients.

That said, where is yours? Where's the practice of that which you preach?

I'm willing to learn, if you have something to teach :-)


--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




SamMan wrote:

I ran the page through a validator, and to be honest, it did, for the
most part do OK.

The one thing that I did notice however, even before I ran it was
that each site link opened a new window without notifying the user
this would happen.

What is the big deal about this?

Consider a blind user selects one of the links, they "look" through
the first page that comes up and then want to go back to the original
page. As much as they try, they never get back to where they think
they should. Similar situation with a user with cognitive
impairments. It is possible that even if they are sighted, they may
not realize a new window has opened (even though it may be obvious to
you and I), and become increasingly frustrated that they can't
navigate back to where they were. Taking this one step further, they
may become so confused as to think that their computer has locked up
and reboot. In both cases, this could have been avoided by placing
some text on the page alerting the user a new window will open when
one of the links are selected. The page looks exactly the same, only
with the addition of 5 words: "Links open a new window".

I have been a first-hand witness to a blind user trying to navigate
such a page. They were totally confused until a sighted person
pointed out to them that a new window had opened. As you can expect,
they were not too happy...

It was stated that "my sites are fully accessible already".... While
this one is accessible to a point, it is not "fully".

Nice graphics, by the way... no really!



"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btve4q$rji$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Clean, simple code is the best bet at having site accessible to
those who truly want to access it.

:-)


--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
SamMan wrote:
"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btu5if$3d0$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Sam,

my sites are fully accessible already. It wasn't hard at all.


I'd take a closer look at: http://www.pixel69.com/portfolio.cfm

Out of curiosity, I checked it and it seems to comply with Section
508 guidelines. There are a few warnings, but no failures, and the
warnings seem to be easily defensible. Did I miss something?

I think you are missing a useful point. Your site doesn't have to cater to
the sightless to be accessible to them. I stated that your site/page was
mostly accessible, but not "fully" as you stated. I offered you a simple
solution, one that would have taken you seconds to do, and you seem to want
to turn it into a contest to see who's work is better. I never said that any
site that I have, or will do, is or will be 100% accessible, or that I'm a
better designer than you, I just offered a tip and explained my position.

If I did have something to teach you, I have sincere reservations that you'd
be willing to learn anything I offered.

Best of luck.

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply


"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote

Sam:

thanks for the compliments.

***
On the topic:

I have my own definition of "accessibility", as you can probably see from
my
posts in this thread.

I'm not interested in having a "W3C VALID" little blemish on my pages. I
don't think deprecating the "target" attribute of the <a> tag is very
smart.
I couldn't care less about "BOBBY" and the people profitting from selling
the dream of the "universal" site. I know better than that.

But most importantly, my site does NOT cater to the blind. I don't think
it
is of interest to blind people, to be honest. I have it so that potential
clients (people who have contacted me ALREADY - I don't EVER solicit work)
can get a general idea of what I do and what they can expect should they
decide to work with me.

This also means you won't get metatags beyond the basic ones. I'm not
interested in "Search Engine Placement". I'm not interested in getting a
client in Tibet.

You won't get type you'll easily enlarge in Internet Explorer. It's my
desire that people view the site as I created it.

My site is just a little brochure, for business purposes exclusively. I
don't think my site is of any interest to anyone other than me and my
clients.

That said, where is yours? Where's the practice of that which you preach?

I'm willing to learn, if you have something to teach :-)


--
Irvin
------------------------