Accessibility comments please

I wondered if this was the right group but am encourged by earlier posts on Accessibiltity.

In Tiscali Forums where I am a member the 'Community Producer' has posted -

"I've been asked to get feedback as to how we can improve the Tiscali portal for partially sighted users."

My suggestion has been that the whole thing should be scrapped and they should employ a competent webmaster with
some knowledge of accessibility issues.

[And even though there is a text alternative the link to it is hidden at the bottom of the page
- and does not appear at all in Lynx, due I think to use of iframes and javascript :-( ]

I'd be glad to know if anyone here agrees or disagreees with my verdict. The url is -
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/

Meanwhile I'll refer them to Jim Thatcher :-)
In UK we don't have Section 508 but the 'Disability Discrimination Act' now applies to websites.

Grateful for any comments.

Regards, G
_________

G'dad wrote:

I'd be glad to know if anyone here agrees or disagreees with my verdict.
The url is -
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/

This site is actively discriminating against partially sighted people.

1) The text is specified in pixels. This precludes anyone using
out-of-the-box IE from changing the font size. There are not nearly enough
pixels specified, the site is, for me, unreadable.

2) When a viewer excercises the accability options in IE to ignore the font
size we find that the author has stupidly specified line-height. IE does not
ignore line-height. When the text is made larger it flows over the top of
the next line, making it unreadable.

3) The author has also stupidly placed text in fixed size divs or whatever.
When the text is made larger (using IE or any other browser) the text
escapes those fixed size divs and becomes invisible.

4) Much of the text is actually images of text. This is, of course,
unresizable.

If this site were published in Australia it would be subject to a "fix it or
we will fine you" order, under the disability act.

My suggestion has been that the whole thing should be scrapped and they
should employ a
competent webmaster with
some knowledge of accessibility issues.

Totally agree.

--
Cheers
Richard.

In message <NFCdd.33765$5O5.30519 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf
<rf@?.invalid> writes

G'dad wrote:

I'd be glad to know if anyone here agrees or disagreees with my verdict.
The url is -
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/

This site is actively discriminating against partially sighted people.

You mean they're *knowingly* going out of their way to make it hard for

partially-sighted people? I doubt it.

1) The text is specified in pixels. This precludes anyone using
out-of-the-box IE from changing the font size. There are not nearly enough
pixels specified, the site is, for me, unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

2) When a viewer excercises the accability options in IE to ignore the font
size we find that the author has stupidly specified line-height. IE does not
ignore line-height. When the text is made larger it flows over the top of
the next line, making it unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

3) The author has also stupidly placed text in fixed size divs or whatever.
When the text is made larger (using IE or any other browser) the text
escapes those fixed size divs and becomes invisible.

Yes, but not a problem if you switch the stylesheet off or use your own
stylesheet.

4) Much of the text is actually images of text. This is, of course,
unresizable.

True.

If this site were published in Australia it would be subject to a "fix it or
we will fine you" order, under the disability act.

I doubt it.

Using Opera with a user-stylesheet there is *no* inaccessible
information so far as I can see (tell me if I'm wrong).

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any) that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

My suggestion has been that the whole thing should be scrapped and they
should employ a
competent webmaster with
some knowledge of accessibility issues.

Totally agree.

regards.

--
Jake

jake wrote:

rf@?.invalid> writes

You mean they're *knowingly* going out of their way to make it hard for
partially-sighted people? I doubt it.

They may not be "knowingly" doing it but they have tried very hard to make
hard for people to use the site.

1) The text is specified in pixels. This precludes anyone using
out-of-the-box IE from changing the font size. There are not nearly
enough
pixels specified, the site is, for me, unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

Very true. So, what are *you* doing? Suggesting we compel people to view the
site with a browser other than IE? You are as bad as the authors of that
site.

2) When a viewer excercises the accability options in IE to ignore the
font
size we find that the author has stupidly specified line-height. IE does
not
ignore line-height. When the text is made larger it flows over the top of
the next line, making it unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

See above.

3) The author has also stupidly placed text in fixed size divs or
whatever.
When the text is made larger (using IE or any other browser) the text
escapes those fixed size divs and becomes invisible.

Yes, but not a problem if you switch the stylesheet off or use your own
stylesheet.

Oh come on. How may people know how to build a user style sheet? Are you
insisting that only people who are web site authors are allowed to view the
site? Blatant discrimination.

If this site were published in Australia it would be subject to a "fix it
or
we will fine you" order, under the disability act.

I doubt it.

Then you do not know very much about Australian law.

Using Opera with a user-stylesheet there is *no* inaccessible
information so far as I can see (tell me if I'm wrong).

Ah, more blatant discrimination. You can only look at this site if you use
Opera?

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any) that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

You must be looking at another site. Either that or you nothing about
building accessible sites.

--
Cheers
Richard.

In message <1lv8uj7elmhwb$.dlg (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info>, brucie
<shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> writes

In alt.html.critique jake said:

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any) that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

you're an idiot.

If you've been told once, you've been told a thousand times "Never post
before taking your medication ...."

turn JS off

And why would I want to do that?

regards.

--
Jake

In message <PxKdd.34095$5O5.21217 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf
<rf@?.invalid> writes

jake wrote:
rf@?.invalid> writes

You mean they're *knowingly* going out of their way to make it hard for
partially-sighted people? I doubt it.

They may not be "knowingly" doing it but they have tried very hard to make
hard for people to use the site.

There .. you're saying it again ........ ;-)

1) The text is specified in pixels. This precludes anyone using
out-of-the-box IE from changing the font size. There are not nearly
enough
pixels specified, the site is, for me, unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

Very true. So, what are *you* doing? Suggesting we compel people to view the
site with a browser other than IE? You are as bad as the authors of that
site.

But it's still not an 'accessibility issue' for the partially-sighted,
is it? It would be if MSIE was the only browser in the world .... but
it's not.

2) When a viewer excercises the accability options in IE to ignore the
font
size we find that the author has stupidly specified line-height. IE does
not
ignore line-height. When the text is made larger it flows over the top of
the next line, making it unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

See above.

See above.

3) The author has also stupidly placed text in fixed size divs or
whatever.
When the text is made larger (using IE or any other browser) the text
escapes those fixed size divs and becomes invisible.

Yes, but not a problem if you switch the stylesheet off or use your own
stylesheet.

Oh come on. How may people know how to build a user style sheet?

I'd imagine that the partially-sighted are more than capable of doing it
or, more importantly, getting help to do it.

Are you
insisting that only people who are web site authors are allowed to view the
site?

Where did I say that? Come on: chapter and verse ;-)

Blatant discrimination.

Blatant nonsense.

If this site were published in Australia it would be subject to a "fix it
or
we will fine you" order, under the disability act.

I doubt it.

Then you do not know very much about Australian law.

"...... well, m'lud ..... I submit that the information contained on my
client's site can be accessed quite satisfactorily in UAs other than IE
and consequently, therefore, there is no case to answer .... "

Using Opera with a user-stylesheet there is *no* inaccessible
information so far as I can see (tell me if I'm wrong).

Ah, more blatant discrimination. You can only look at this site if you use
Opera?

The point is: if I can, then the information contained on the page is
available to me.

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any) that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

You must be looking at another site. Either that or you nothing about
building accessible sites.

Hmmm ....... I was hoping you'd point out the truly inaccessible

information ..... but all I hear is posturing and rhetoric.

I guess it's 'back to the drawing board' for you.

regards.

--
Jake

jake wrote:

[rubbish]

brucie was wrong.

You are not an idiot.

You are a *fucking* idiot.

<plonk>

--
Cheers
Richard.

In message <sBOdd.34371$5O5.22186 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf
<rf@?.invalid> writes

jake wrote:

[rubbish]

brucie was wrong.

You are not an idiot.

You are a *fucking* idiot.

Is that the best you can do?

(I guess that when you've got no case to argue, that probably is your
best ...... sad.)

plonk
Ah, the unofficial Usenet acknowledgement that you've lost the argument

;-)

However, I don't think I'll <plonk> your good self, as I find your

diatribes a never-ending source of amusement.

regards.
--
Jake

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:32:59 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote:

In message <1lv8uj7elmhwb$.dlg (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info>, brucie
shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> writes
In alt.html.critique jake said:

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any)
that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

you're an idiot.

If you've been told once, you've been told a thousand times "Never post
before taking your medication ...."

Sounds like you are at the moment, jake.

turn JS off

And why would I want to do that?

Some folks have to. Javascript is by definition optional. Reliance on it
is an issue. If you want to debate it's an accessibility issue or a
general usability issue, that's one thing. But reliance on Js is most
definitely problematic.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:56:32 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote:

1) The text is specified in pixels. This precludes anyone using
out-of-the-box IE from changing the font size. There are not nearly
enough
pixels specified, the site is, for me, unreadable.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

So?

No one's compelled to view it at ALL. With your logic, those who cannot
read a webpage ought to find a nice book.

If IE was incapable of changing font sizes at all, I'd agree that it would
be a poor choice. But as Linus said, "It's not such a bad little tree
after all." If you code sensibly, it can work in IE.

No one is compelled to view it with MSIE.

Cracker? Bwaak!

Using Opera with a user-stylesheet there is *no* inaccessible
information so far as I can see (tell me if I'm wrong).

So, you feel that so long as it works in one particular environment, it's
fine?

What if my page works if you use IE with Flash and Javascript working?
You'll have a fit. If a user requires a particular browser, and in fact
requires it to be specifically customized (in a way a rare user even
understands can be done), it's broke. Sorry.

The site may not be coded to the highest standards with ease of
accessibility in mind, but I doubt that there's much there (if any) that
is truly 'inaccessible'.

.... so long as you use this or that browser. What happened to writing for
the WWW?