Accessibility and the law

#41

SamMan wrote:

Quote:

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!

What would be esier than that a browser for the blind will notify the
blind automaticly if a new page is opened.

I dont want to bother sighted people with a message like that. And th
attribute 'target _blank' is very very usefull for the rest of us.

Joost Kolkman

#42

Hey, Sam

I was not the one who brought my work into this topic. It was you, as
everyone can see.

You are one of the "theoreticians" so common in these ng's: people who talk
a good game, but have never played one.

Hopefully, someday you'll be given the opportunity to design a web site;
THEN, you'll understand the issues.

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

SamMan wrote:

Quote:

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.

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btvhpl$2a9$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
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
------------------------

#43

You were the one that stated your sites are "fully" accessible. My first
post was just asking if you were complaining because a little extra work was
needed to make pages accessible. I did not make any statements, or
observations about your site, until you brought it up.

Again, I merely offered you a tip to help your site be more accessible.

You know little or nothing about me, but you seem comfortable stating what I
am, what I have or haven't done. Just because I choose not to parade my work
here in a contest of skills with you, doesn't mean I have done nothing, or
know what I speak of. I have designed many sites... and do so on a daily
basis. I have seen disabled users first-hand having troubles, and listened
to their input on how I might resolve them. I know the issues.

I'm sorry if I came across a little hard on my first post, but lately on
this group, there are a number of people expending too much energy on
something that has a pretty simple solution.... All while maintaining the
current look of their site.

Once again... Best of luck

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

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

Quote:

Hey, Sam

I was not the one who brought my work into this topic. It was you, as
everyone can see.

You are one of the "theoreticians" so common in these ng's: people who
talk
a good game, but have never played one.

Hopefully, someday you'll be given the opportunity to design a web site;
THEN, you'll understand the issues.

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

SamMan wrote:
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.

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btvhpl$2a9$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
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
------------------------

#44

Sam,

Please, put yourself in my shoes:

As you say, I know nothing about you. That's true.

But it is also true that there's no evidence of you ever having worked on a
single site. Is there?

This is all we can go by: you are posting under a fake name, you have never
shown any work you might have done, you don't have a URL in your signature.
There's no evidence that you are involved with web design in any capacity.

Isn't that true?

The fact is you mentinoed my portfolio page in your post and then went on to
analize why it was not "fully accessible" (according to your own standards
of accessibility).

Isn't it true?

Then, I said, "Fair enough. Now, show me what you mean. Let me see how YOU
DO IT". And all of a sudden you're crying foul.

Isn't it true?

How fair is it that you can judge my work but nobody can judge yours? If you
had nothing to hide, you would provide it and, in doing so, you'd be
teaching me a lesson on how to make truly accessible sites without much
effort, as stated in your post.

C'mon, Sam. Be a man. Stand by your statements. Produce the evidence.

****

Because I don't want you to think I'm a bad guy, I'll help you a bit:

You can just produce a link to ANY site you deem nice and accessible enough
to claim as yours. Nobody will be able to tell whether ownership is
legitimate or not, because we don't really know who you are.

That would get you off the hook.

Any link will do.

I promise I'll accept it.

No questions asked.

In fact, this will be my last post on this thread.

good luck, Sam.

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

SamMan wrote:

Quote:

You were the one that stated your sites are "fully" accessible. My
first post was just asking if you were complaining because a little
extra work was needed to make pages accessible. I did not make any
statements, or observations about your site, until you brought it up.

Again, I merely offered you a tip to help your site be more
accessible.

You know little or nothing about me, but you seem comfortable stating
what I am, what I have or haven't done. Just because I choose not to
parade my work here in a contest of skills with you, doesn't mean I
have done nothing, or know what I speak of. I have designed many
sites... and do so on a daily basis. I have seen disabled users
first-hand having troubles, and listened to their input on how I
might resolve them. I know the issues.

I'm sorry if I came across a little hard on my first post, but lately
on this group, there are a number of people expending too much energy
on something that has a pretty simple solution.... All while
maintaining the current look of their site.

Once again... Best of luck

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:bu0pgb$j6v$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Hey, Sam

I was not the one who brought my work into this topic. It was you, as
everyone can see.

You are one of the "theoreticians" so common in these ng's: people
who talk a good game, but have never played one.

Hopefully, someday you'll be given the opportunity to design a web
site; THEN, you'll understand the issues.

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

SamMan wrote:
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.

"irvin" <noone (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:btvhpl$2a9$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
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
------------------------

#45

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

Quote:

Sam,

Please, put yourself in my shoes:

As you say, I know nothing about you. That's true.

But it is also true that there's no evidence of you ever having worked on
a
single site. Is there?

Wrong.
There is plenty of evidence of my work. I just don't feel the need to prove
myself to you, in this case.

Quote:

This is all we can go by: you are posting under a fake name, you have
never
shown any work you might have done, you don't have a URL in your
signature.
There's no evidence that you are involved with web design in any capacity.

Isn't that true?

False.
SamMan is my real nickname. You used my real, proper name at the end of your
last post. How hard was it to figure out? If I wanted to use a fake name,
don't you think I could have been more creative? I wasn't aware that a URL
was required in my signature.

Evidence I'm involved in web design? http://www.ims.state.ne.us/webdev/ I
think that you are bright enough to navigate to find my name....

Quote:

The fact is you mentinoed my portfolio page in your post and then went on
to
analize why it was not "fully accessible" (according to your own standards
of accessibility).

Isn't it true?

False.
Read this slowly.... You stated that your sites are "fully accessible". I
went looking and found that although you did a good gob at it, one aspect
needed a second look. I wasn't analizing why that particular page was not
accessable, but merely explaning my position of why alerting the user a new
window would open was a good idea. I did this because I knew if I didn't,
you (and others) would be asking. Now look... I'm having to do it again. Was
it you that made this statement?.... "I have my own definition of
"accessibility", as you can probably see from my
posts in this thread."

Quote:

Then, I said, "Fair enough. Now, show me what you mean. Let me see how YOU
DO IT". And all of a sudden you're crying foul.

Isn't it true?

False.
Again... why do I need to produce a link to show you that you should alert
the user that a new window is going to open? I did show you how I do it with
my words. What more is needed? Additionally, there is no need to shout to
get your point across...

Quote:

How fair is it that you can judge my work but nobody can judge yours? If
you
had nothing to hide, you would provide it and, in doing so, you'd be
teaching me a lesson on how to make truly accessible sites without much
effort, as stated in your post.

I was not judging your work. Again, I was merely offering a suggestion of
how you could come closer to your statement of "fully accessible". There are
many good points about your site, and I even complimented you on one aspect
of it. I think your idea of teaching a lesson and mine are much different. I
am not out to prove you a lesser designer.

Quote:

C'mon, Sam. Be a man. Stand by your statements. Produce the evidence.

Nice try... ;-)

Quote:

****

Because I don't want you to think I'm a bad guy, I'll help you a bit:

Who said you were a bad guy?

Quote:

You can just produce a link to ANY site you deem nice and accessible
enough
to claim as yours. Nobody will be able to tell whether ownership is
legitimate or not, because we don't really know who you are.

That would get you off the hook.

Any link will do.

Off the hook? I wasn't aware that I was on one.

Quote:

I promise I'll accept it.

No questions asked.

I'm sorry, but I have my suspitions.

Quote:

In fact, this will be my last post on this thread.

OK....
Again, the best of luck.

Quote:

--
Sam aka SamMan
Rip it to reply