Don't Shoot Me! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

Nicole -> Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 5:34:50)

Tables for Layout and Table Summaries:

I'm not stubborn, well on using tables instead of CSS for layout I'm not, but it just happens that I have a lot of old sites and templates that use tables for layout, and in them I had a table summary saying "layout table" or "this is not a data table" or something similar. Checking against some accessibility checkers, I'm receiving a fail at Priority 3 now that I've deleted the table summaries (thinking that doing that was the right thing).

A few questions:

1. Is it ludicrous to claim Priority 3 accessibility if I put those same table summaries back in, considering the sites arre still using tables for layout?

2. If so, is it ludicrous to claim any level of accessibility if your site uses tables for layout?

3. Has anyone some good links to any sites which clearly explain why tables used for layout are so bad?

Please don't shoot me for asking.

Nicole



davidrandall -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 6:34:44)

Putting summaries on a table used for layout a grey area.

For the main "container" table a summary would be inappropriate - a screen reader user would not benefit from hearing "layout table" or similar. It may be useful, depending on the level of nesting, to have summaries describing each section (i.e, latest news).

Yes, the automated tests will fail you for not including summaries but this is another area where automated testing falls down.

You would only be able to claim level A accessibility as you would fail the priory 2 checkpoint:
quote:

3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.


Have a look at http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ for more.

Dave



spitfire -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 7:03:09)

Hi Nicole
Personal opinions for what they may be worth.
Using tables for layout is not, necessarily, bad. But the tables must linearise properly. One (in)famous example is the site of the Royal National Institute of the Blind [ www.rnib.org.uk ] You'll have to scroll down a bit to get to the code - quirky. As is becoming increasingly common, the RNIB do not claim and "A" badges, but the tables linearise perfectly and the site is accessible.

As to agonising over reaching Priority 3. This is thought to be (almost) impossible to achieve. Some of the checkpoints are controversial or out-dated and quite a number of accessibility gurus are ignoring them.
Consider:
4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs.
Tell that to IE which doesn't support <abbr>

9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects.
Why - when I've already placed them in a logical order in the document?

9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links
That is, if you can find keyboard combinations that are not already used by browsers, apps and screen-readers. Access keys have probably reached the end of their useful life: [ http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66 ] and the related articles.

10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links.
Modern, commercial screen-reading software will say err... link, whether or not it is surrounded by a character, sandwiched between spaces. Most of the characters used sound odd, or confusing to screen-reader users.

Frankly, when I see a triple "A" badge on a site, my first reaction is - yeah right[:D]







jaybee -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 8:44:40)

quote:

controversial or out-dated


And then there's the forms value thing which just confuses the heck out of visitors who end up sending you emails with a return address of "Please enter your email address" [:@]

I've just removed all values to stop this happening and made sure that each field is properly labelled.

You can get a AAA site without too much hassle if the site is designed for it in the first place and doesn't use too much clever stuff. Otherwise it's damned hard work and can be, as Spit so rightly states, completely impossible. I've tried it on a few sites, some successful and others not. You tend to end up with some pages at AAA, some at AA and stuff like forums, blogs etc you just do your best. Problem is you can make the base page comply but as soon as people start to add content, you've lost it unless you stop them adding anything other than plain text.

Access keys are the real sticking point and it's tough to know who to believe. I'm following the Patrick White of the UAWG line who says don't use them.

I have the labels on most of my sites but am starting to remove them because it's becoming clear that the rules change too often and unless you're going to constantly go back and check out all your sites on a regular basis, then your claims will end up invalid. I'm putting accessibility pages on instead which explain what the site tries to achieve.



spitfire -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 9:40:56)

quote:

I'm putting accessibility pages on instead which explain what the site tries to achieve.

Me too. Adding "A" badges only opens you up to people who will criticize your personal opinion with their own personal opinion and, of course the time-waster quasi experts [:@]
My take is:
1) Forget the badges for that is all they are. I've got a woodworking badge from many years ago - but can't use modern power-tools to save my life;
2) Validate all the code - no argument from anyone - it either validates or it doesn't;
3) Follow such guidelines that are relevant to your site;
4) Put up a full accessibility policy;
5) Ask site visitors to report any accessibility problems they have experienced and make it easy for them to do so;
6) Study the subject and test the site physically (not theoretically or automatically) as much as you can;
7) Then... do what you think is right [:D]



caz -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 10:24:10)

Spit, I think your take on this is worth a lot [;)]

In reality the "guidelines" are just a work in progress aren't they? This is such a new area that we can't expect hard and fast rules yet and have to be flexible in our approach both to design and validation. A good dollop of common sense along with physical testing where possible, is the best approach.



spitfire -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 12:12:12)

Too true, caz.
Of course "work in progress" suggests that sometime there will be a finished something or other that everyone will buy into. Hmmmm... I wonder[:D]



jaybee -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 13:46:01)

BUY! BUY! I'm not paying for it! [sm=yikes.gif]



spitfire -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 13:58:02)

QED ahem!



womble -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/4/2005 19:38:30)

quote:

A good dollop of common sense

So true and so required.

My current project I must admit I am using the 'badges', but that's mainly to keep the funders happy, but I do have an accessibility policy page.

quote:

5) Ask site visitors to report any accessibility problems they have experienced and make it easy for them to do so;

Hey Spit, what a clever chappie you are! [:)] I like the idea of asking visitors for their opinions

/considers rushing off to make a few changes to the accessibility page but then realises that it's the past the time when all good wombles should be in bed (but then when have I ever been a good womble?! [:D][8D])

quote:

BUY! BUY! I'm not paying for it!

[:D] Ooooh, Jaybee, what a can of worms! Do we really have to have the cost-benefit argument (flame war) again? Hmmmmm, I'll say no more. I think my views on this subject are clear...



jaybee -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 6:02:37)

quote:

I like the idea of asking visitors for their opinions


They'll give them to you as well. I put

quote:

This site has been designed to be fully accessible in all current browsers

If you have any problems accessing any of the features please email the webmaster


on my large hobby site and within a day I had a chap complaining he couldn't see any of the pictures. Turned out it was his Norton blocking them but I spent a good few hours trying to sort the problem. Be prepared.



Nicole -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 6:45:05)

quote:

on my large hobby site and within a day I had a chap complaining he couldn't see any of the pictures. Turned out it was his Norton blocking them but I spent a good few hours trying to sort the problem. Be prepared.


I guess it's a case of live and learn, or at least you learn what people's problems are so you try and counter them by either fixing them, or including a section in this page as to what people should check before they lodge a complaint.

i.e. make sure javascript is enabled, images are enabled, your security settings are blah blah....

...this is what i'm hoping to do with my FAQ's for the templates I'm doing, I'm sure I'll get a lot of the same kinds of questions, so I'll just add them into the FAQ and try and limit the amount of questions that way.

But what about putting that AA sticker or whatever from whichever validator so the viewer can then go and look at what your site was validated against?

Nicole



Donkey -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 7:26:36)

This is a very interesting thread to read.

I agree that the badges on the site are not important for two reasons;

1) To an 'able bodied' person it is irrelevant to them how easy the site is to use for anyone of different abilities.

2) To a 'handicapped' person the badge and even the level of accessibility is also irrelevant. All that matters is whether they can use the site effectively. The mechanics of the accessibility don't matter it's the end result that counts i.e. can they or can't they use the site. So IMHO they will try it and if it works fine! Having a badge doesn't really mean diddly. Except to other web designers.

One of the objectives of any website should be to allow access to the largest potential audience possible whatever their disability or disadvantage. I believe that is something that good website designers should do as a matter of course, but as has been mentioned in a previous thread there is no commercial advantage in promoting the concept with badges etc. The usability (or not) of the site combined with market forces will be the mechanisim that will enforce higher standards in the long term.


<edit>
Apologies for using non PC terminology.
</edit>



caz -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 7:31:23)

quote:

But what about putting that AA sticker or whatever from whichever validator so the viewer can then go and look at what your site was validated against?


The badges often detract from the design -clients sometimes don't like them either, although they are fine with the idea of accessibility so I am starting to put it all in the footer where other link info is kept. For example:-
home :: privacy :: copyright :: contact | xhtml 1.0 :: css 1/2 :: accessiblity

I am also thinking of constructing a "standards compliance" page to hold summary explanations, links to validators and other sources of information. This can be reused with minor tweaking in the same way that privacy and copyright pages can. (Anything that saves time [;)])




Nicole -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 7:50:58)

Good points Donkey, I agree with you but in a similar scenario, why do shops, and other businesses display membership badges, and other affiliations on their shopfront? Is it to show the public that the guy down the road who's in the same business isn't as reputable? Is it to show off to the public what their shop or business can do for them? Doesn't a badge saying "Member of the Association of Chartered Accountants" present a whole lot easier than writing a whole lot of notes about one's qualifications in the field of Accounting? Isn't it quick and easy to see for people who are possibly looking for a web designer who can design accessible sites?

Nicole



davidrandall -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 8:01:58)

With (x)html and CSS, they are either coded correctly or they aren't. Accessibility on the other hand is incredibly subjective. It isn't as simple as running the site through an automated checker and seeing if it passes.

The guidelines laid down by the WAI are just that. Guidelines. They are open to interpretation. An automated checker is not open to interpretation. It cannot determine if your link text is appropriate in the context of the rest of the text. It cannot determine if the alt text of an image is appropriate for that image.

Whenever I see a "AAA" badge I just think "yeah right". I know that's very negative of me but it's usually pretty clear to see, without viewing the code, if a site is accessible or not.

quote:

why do shops, and other businesses display membership badges, and other affiliations on their shopfront


They are recognisable and have meaning, which is one of the main problems with web badges: a lack of user recognition.

Pretty much the only people who would understand valid (x)html, valid CSS, Bobby Approved, WAI AAA, Rediscover the Web, Get Firefox, GAWDS, UA-WG, BWDMA, etc, etc badges are those in the industry. A non techie is likely to ignore it because they don't understand it. If they do click on a badge, they are likely to be presented to a validation results screen that they don't understand.

I think these type of badges are left off until there is an industry standard that actually carries some weight and is recognisable for what it is.

Dave



Nicole -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 8:09:43)

Think I'll rest my weary eyes on that note, thanks dave, and thanks for the link in your initial post in this thread too.

Nicole



Donkey -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 8:28:27)

quote:

Isn't it quick and easy to see for people who are possibly looking for a web designer who can design accessible sites?
Perhaps on your own site where self promotion is vital then the badges could help.

I'm not sure that many clients are out there looking for web designers to design accessible sites. Certainly not in the commercial sector. Local government/healthcare/charities etc. perhaps, but most commercial organisations will not be proactive on this matter. They will accept the need to have it done as apart of the package but the people commissioning the work will probably not see it as a priority.

After several years of legislation and publicity the 'real world' is still woefully inaccessible to a lot of people. Recently a group of us had a hard job finding a pub with a ramp (one of our colleagues was using a wheeled walking frame) in the middle of a busy large town. Being (relatively) able bodied it is not something I have noticed before, but it was annoying that all of these establishments had not made the effort to welcome a few more of their potential customers. The owners had obviously not prioritised physical access so they are equally unlikely to worry about virtual access.

I think the answer is to make the site as accessible as possible within the budget agreed without telling the customer or asking their permission to do so, and equally without flagging the accessibility with a badge. An unobtrusive text link as used by Caz above would be a better soloution then if anyone is interested they can check it out. Although I suspect most of the click throughs would be from other web designers not potential clients.



caz -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 8:54:15)

quote:

most commercial organisations will not be proactive on this matter. They will accept the need to have it done as apart of the package but the people commissioning the work will probably not see it as a priority.


Ah, but as I told you in the pub (when we finally found an accessible one) a local pub owner who had made great efforts to improve the accessibility of his 17th century building was very keen to do the same with his web site. So the word is beginning to percolate through to the commercial sector. Of course he knew nothing about the various web badges, unlike the AA restaurant badges; he just wanted an accessible site to complement his accessible premises.



Donkey -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 9:25:32)

quote:

a local pub owner who had made great efforts to improve the accessibility of his 17th century building was very keen to do the same with his web site. So the word is beginning to percolate through to the commercial sector.
I suspect he is more enlightened than, and unrepresentative of the majority.[;)] Let's hope the trend continues.




spitfire -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 11:21:00)


quote:

ORIGINAL: davidrandall
Whenever I see a "AAA" badge I just think "yeah right".

Couldn't agree more[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: spitfire
Frankly, when I see a triple "A" badge on a site, my first reaction is - yeah right

'tis deja vu all over again, I tell you[;)]

With standards in mind, a bit of idle surfing this am brought up this:
[ http://www.digital-web.com/articles/ten_reasons_clients_dont_care_about_accessibility/ ]
it's a relatively new article, so may not have been cited here before, although I confess I have not gone through all the accessibility articles to check. Sorry, if you've already done this one to death - just ignore- don't bother to tell me.

Now, having found that from here, same apology etc, etc :
[ http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/06/march-to-your-own-standard ]
I perceive a pattern emerging. I have a great deal of respect for Mike Davidson and what he has done in the past. Having been a standards (and accessibility) evangelist for a long time, I also have to own up to a (grudging) respect for what he has to say. Of course he must have a profound knowledge of standards to be able to do what he has done here and produce a cross-(modern) browser, accessible page, complete with font-size and font-type gizmo. The point seems to be that a lot of the standards really do not matter and I couldn't help notice that page alone has a page rank of 8.

I guess that's me black-balled from accessibility fora and one, outrageously pedantic, "standards are all that matter" forum [image]http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/a050.gif[/image]



womble -> RE: Don't Shoot Me! (10/5/2005 11:30:11)

quote:

After several years of legislation and publicity the 'real world' is still woefully inaccessible to a lot of people.

So true - despite the legislation and increased publicity, even the ones that try don't always fully think it through - even the accessible pub, while it had ramped access had the toilets downstairs in the basement - now there's good planning for you!

Accessibility isn't just about following whatever legislation and guidelines are in place - it requires a healthy dollop of common sense as well.

Like Dave said, the automated checkers can't check your link text is appropriate or if the alt text of an image is appropriate. You can get a site that's passed all the checks, but in reality is still almost as inaccessible as the next one that's not gone into accessibility at all. And again, they are just guidelines - whether all of it's necessary is debatable (i.e. the access keys debate)

Yes, I suppose using the 'badges', whether out there in the 'real world' or on the web is a way of saying, I care enough to at least try and make my services available to everyone, but that's only the beginning of the story.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375