Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations Chris Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Accessability, need some pointers. 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

1DMF

Programmer
Jan 18, 2005
8,795
GB
I'm about to embark on the task on trying to make my sites Accessible under W3C guidelines, i've done some googling and came across some info, which not suprisingly I need help understanding.

So here goes...

1. I'm running my site through accesskeys.org and it's thrown up some warnings...
30 Mortgage Products #D9DB9C
Class: .products ul li
#2B2B2B
Class: .products
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

48 Insurance Products #D9DB9C
Class: .products ul li
#2B2B2B
Class: .products
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

62 Loans #D9DB9C
Class: .products ul li
#2B2B2B
Class: .products
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

154 What People Say #D9DB9C
Class: .adverts h2
#2B2B2B
Class: .adverts
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

156 Mr Mansbridge, Vale of Glamorgan #D9DB9C
Class: .adverts h3
#2B2B2B
Class: .adverts
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

158 Mr Sutton, Somerset #D9DB9C
Class: .adverts h3
#2B2B2B
Class: .adverts
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

160 Mrs Howell, West Sussex #D9DB9C
Class: .adverts h3
#2B2B2B
Class: .adverts
Brightness: 168
Difference: 463

It is saying that the difference is wrong, what does this mean and why is it an error , it's mustard yellow text on a near-black background?

is it because we are using the same colour/bg for <h1><h2><h3> etc.. and there is no difference?

Why is this an issue, why does there need to be a difference in colour with these elements.

or is this not what they mean.

2. I understand you should add "accesskey" & "tab-index" to your main links / menu , is there any 'standards' for this, i.e. 1 always = home or tab should go across the page or up and down?

Any pointers on the correct way to code and apply the accessability standards would be very much appreciated.

Regards,

1DMF

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
Thanks Chris,

Yes UK law and exactly my problem too, i'm no lawyer, though the missus works for solicitors and has implemented them on their website.

I think you make a good point, implement them using the standard the lawmakers set, this will hopefully cover our backside!

I'm stugling to match their guidlines to my pages and would appreciate feedback on the list below.

S - Skip navigation
1 - Home page
2 - What's new
3 - Site map
4 - Search
5 - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
6 - Help
7 - Complaints procedure
8 - Terms and conditions
9 - Feedback form
0 - Access key details

S - what does skip navigation mean?
1 - no probs - index.html - sorted!
2 - don't have a page with this on!
3 - Don't have one (should we, is this part of accerssability and concidered standard, we have a sietmap.xml, but i assume that's not the same!)
4 - don't have this facility, nor want to add one, I'm thinking this is more to find specific products if we sold items online, would you agree?
5 - don't have an FAQ, should we?
6 - Help (would this be the accessability page i will be creating? as per the missus has done 7 - don't have one (this is handled by the FSA regulations regarding giving mortgage advice and is supplied on the relevant FSA / mortgage documents)
8 - this can link to our privacy policy i assume
9 - This could be the form we require to be filled in only we have @ 20 different ones that are product specific , so that won't work!, would the generic advice.html be the right thing to do?
0 - doesn't this conflict with 6 ? what's the difference between help and accessability help, aren't they the same page?

many thanks
1DMF

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
Hi

1DMF said:
S - what does skip navigation mean?
Try to imagine how annoying would be for a blind visitor to listen all navigation links before the proper content.
Code:
<html>
[gray]<!-- ... -->[/gray]
<body>
[red]<a href="#content" accesskey="s">skip navigation</a>[/red]
<ul>
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
[gray]<!-- a few dozen more... -->[/gray]
<li><a href="">Navigation link</a></li>
</ul>
[red]<a name="content"></a>[/red]
<h1>Title</h1>
[gray]<!-- proper content -->[/gray]
</body>
</html>
Of course, if the site is not structured like the above example, there is no need to skip the navigations links. But then could be helpful to skip to navigation links.

Feherke.
 
hmmm, yeah I know i could do that, hey let's all pass the buck!

I wan't my work to be the best I can, I take pride in my work and tend to go the extra mile, hell I've forgotten how many hours unpaid overtime i've done working on a website till sily o'clock of the morning, because I won't be beat!

That's good for you.

I try to make my work good as well, but I work for such idiots that sometimes I just don't care. I've developed a bad attitude because the worst worker we have is the bosses favorite and no matter how much he messes stuff up and does nothing, he's still awesome.


[monkey][snake] <.
 
ahh right, yes i need that for sure, we have a whole heap of links on the left as well as the main top ones, i'm assuming that the screen reader would read out the page in the same order that the tab-key is working.

that could drive you mad!

thanks for the heads up, very good point!



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
lol - excellent monksnake , a few here are still sewing their sides back together.

They could all name someone like that !!!

But I hold no grudge , good for them, they probably drink Horlicks at night and don't give a s**t!

Unfortunately I don't tick that way, though I did get fed up a while back and hand my notice in, but was then offered a MASSIVE pay increase, plus incentives, so mustn't grumble.

At the end of the day could you sit at work doing nothing all day, that would drive me mad! bit like those links and a screen reader

[rofl2]


"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
Hi

1DMF said:
3 - Don't have one (should we, is this part of accerssability and concidered standard, we have a sietmap.xml, but i assume that's not the same!)
No, but if you already have an XML sitemap, you could write a script to generate a HTML version.
1DMF said:
4 - don't have this facility, nor want to add one, I'm thinking this is more to find specific products if we sold items online, would you agree?
Not really. The site search does not mean only product search. Although I agree, in many cases it is useless. Especially if does not work perfectly...
1DMF said:
5 - don't have an FAQ, should we?
I would say, do it if can. I found myself in the later time starting a site's navigation with the FAQ, if the link was present on the main page.
1DMF said:
6 - Help (would this be the accessability page i will be creating? as per the missus has done
Not really. There could be situations when help is useful for those without disabilities too. I have no proper idea what could that be.
1DMF said:
9 - This could be the form we require to be filled in only we have @ 20 different ones that are product specific , so that won't work!, would the generic advice.html be the right thing to do?
I would say that should be "Contact Information", not only [tt]form[/tt]. If the advice.html helps choosing the right person to contact with a given question, that is perfect to put there. At least in my opinion.
1DMF said:
0 - doesn't this conflict with 6 ? what's the difference between help and accessability help, aren't they the same page?
Again, I think that wording is too restrictive. That should be the place for much more accessibility information than just accesskeys. Mark Pilgrim seems to also think so :


Feherke.
 
many thanks to everyone's input on this, I think I now have an idea of a good compromise and a way forward.

You guys rock!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
OK Now I have a problem, why is the accesskey applied to an anchor not going to the page?

Here is the code....

Code:
<li><a rel="home" accesskey="1" href="[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.independentmortgagenetwork.co.uk/index.html"[/URL] title="Independent Mortgage Advice Network">Home Page</a></li>

basically if you go to the about us page, which is where I have added the code, then press ALT+1 , you are not taken to the home page, all it does it put focus to the anchor element.

the ALT+S works fine, and jumps to the main content div, so do the access keys only focus on the element they are attached to?




"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
do the access keys only focus on the element they are attached to?
In IE, yes. In other browsers, no. It's one of the issues mentioned in the WebAIM page I linked to above.

I'm not saying that IE is wrong here, btw. The spec is decidedly ambiguous:
Pressing an access key assigned to an element gives focus to the element. The action that occurs when an element receives focus depends on the element. For example, when a user activates a link defined by the A element, the user agent generally follows the link.
So should the access key just focus on the element (first sentence) or follow the link (last sentence)? MS have jumped one way, others have jumped the other.

You just have to hope that people used to using access keys are also used to how they work in their particular browser.

Incidentally, in response to your "I'm struggling to match their guidlines to my pages" post, I don't think UKgov are requiring you to have all those pages on your site. It's just saying "If you have a link to this-type-of-page on your page, allocate this-accesskey to it". If you don't have a FAQ or a search facility or whatever, you don't need to bother with that particular accesskey.

Of course, if the list gets you to consider whether a particular type of page might be a useful addition to your site, so much the better.


-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
 
many thanks Chris, thought I was doing something wrong for a minute.

And you are quite right, it has made me think about what pages we don't have and possibly might add.

I'm banging my head thinking how to incorporate the additional links to the current design as the menu structure will not accomodate additional menu options.

Isn't this webmastering fun!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.
 
right guys, i've finished the accessibility page and added the keys and additional options (i've still got to write some of the pages though!)

I was hoping you might check out the page and let me know what you think.


many thanks
1DMF

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!
 
Hi

Yes, that is a good start.

Personally I like that text and probably other professionals/maniacs will also like it. But there are to many technical detail for an average visitor.

By the way, it is [tt]alt[/tt] attribute, not [tt]alt[/tt] tag. ;-)

Feherke.
 
By the way, it is alt attribute, not alt tag.
lol - man you are quite right, I can't beleive I didn't spot that and pull the missus up on it.


That'll teach me for copy/pasting and not paying enough attention to the content!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!
 
And unless you're talking about this, the word is accessility, not acccessability.

___________________________________________________________
[small]Do something about world cancer today: PACT[/small]
 
accesslity? huh?

oh ok you mean 'Accessibility' not ability

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!
 
I like that page 1DMF, very nice layout of your accessibility options, easy to read.

[monkey][snake] <.
 
:~/ Put too much TGML styling in that one and missed the spelling completely. But you got the idea.

___________________________________________________________
[small]Do something about world cancer today: PACT[/small]
 
thanks Monksnake, infact I think i'll print your comment and frame it.

It's got to be the first compliment i've had in this forum.

Normally it's a kicking! lol

[roll1]


"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top