'Most websites' failing disabled 4

[Foamcow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6210068.stm

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Earl & Thompson Marketing - Marketing Agency Services in Gloucestershire

 

[feherke]

Hi

In situations like this the same question comes in my mind : "is my site accessible ?". I believe that I followed the guidelines, but Cyntia complains for things that seems strange for me.

Is true that peoples with disabilities are confused because I have two links with the same text and different URL ?

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[traingamer]

Is true that peoples with disabilities are confused because I have two links with the same text and different URL ?

I think people without disabilities could be confused by that.

Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill

 

[feherke]

Hi

Thank you.

Then probably I need to rethink the two lists on the left. Pity, because I like them as are now.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[traingamer]

I understand that one link is source and one is the man(ual) page. Maybe you could simply modify the man links to 'man seq' instead of a second 'seq.sh' link.

Or just continue with the non-accessibility.

Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill

 

[feherke]

Hi

Maybe you could simply modify the man links to 'man seq' instead of a second 'seq.sh' link.

Yes, that is the simplest solution. But the man box needs its own title, so repeating it for each item in part looks strange. I modified it now and I leave it for a couple of days to see how my eyes will accommodate with it.

Or just continue with the non-accessibility.

I would like to leave such practices for those who make sites for money.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[traingamer]

...so repeating it for each item in part looks strange.

I forgot my cardinal rule, "less is more". Just remove the '.sh' and have links like 'seq' under the man heading. That way, they're different for accessability and smaller than before!

 

[ChrisHunt]

Is true that peoples with disabilities are confused because I have two links with the same text and different URL ?

Possibly. The problem is that people with screen readers can get their software to read out just the links on a page - it's kinda what a sighted visitor does when quickly scanning a page. It's gonna cause a problem if you've got multiple links with the same text - how will they distinguish them?

Incidentally, that's one reason not to use "click here" or similar text on links. Imagine the poor visitor just hearing a succession of "click here"s as link text.

Incidentally, if you've not been there yet, this site is good:

http://diveintoaccessibility.org

-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd

 

[feherke]

Hi

Just remove the '.sh' and have links like 'seq' under the man heading.

Nooo, that would be worst. Then people, and search engines too, would think that points to the manual of the well known Unix utility.

people with screen readers can get their software to read out just the links on a page

Hmm... I did not thought that anyone would read the links extracted from their context. Then my biggest problem is the site map. :-(

I eliminated the banal "click here" links since long time, but probably neither the replacements are the best.

I know diveintoaccessibility.org and also know accessify.com and webaim.org, but I did not had time for them. I tried to choose a quick way by reading the W3C documents and parts of the requirements for american and british governmental sites. They are good, but seems to not be enough.

Ok, I will reschedule the todo list of readings.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[Stretchwickster]

Apparently, some screen readers will incorrectly read adjacent links as a single link. (Source:

http://webxact2.watchfire.com/themes/standard-en-us/help/HIDD_WDContent_G35.html)

Having read the above BBC News article I did a bit of searching online and found the free Watchfire WebXACT service (

http://webxact.watchfire.com/)

to be very useful indeed. There are links to good explanations for each compliance item and a list of items to check manually is generated.

Clive

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." (Paul Ehrlich)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To get the best answers from this forum see: faq102-5096

 

[feherke]

Hi

Thank you Clive for that link. I did not visited Watchfire since long time and as I can see they worked a lot in meantime.

But they have some strange suggestions, like

Place some sort of separating character between adjacent links. [gray](...)[/gray] You can also use explicit separator characters such as "|" or enclose the links in brackets [ ].

In other places I read that the pipe ( | ) character is a bad idea because some screen readers will spell it and the menu will hear like : "main pipe products pipe about pipe contact". Which is just one degree better then stupid ASCII arts like :
[highlight #FFFACD]
--=[ [blue]Main[/blue] ]=-- | --=[ [blue]Products[/blue] ]=-- | --=[ [blue]About[/blue] ]=-- | --=[ [blue]Contact[/blue] ]=--[/highlight]

Include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas

I understand that is needed to provide [tt]alt[/tt] attribute for [tt]input[/tt] elements. I also understand that is needed to provide a [tt]label[/tt] for [tt]input[/tt] elements. But why to fill it with stupid bla-bla ? Just my visitors to have to delete it before using it ? ( No, I do not want JavaScript tricks on my site. )

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[Stretchwickster]

Place some sort of separating character between adjacent links. (...) You can also use explicit separator characters such as "|" or enclose the links in brackets [ ].

I tried their other suggestion of using a list. I used the following unordered list as a separator:

<ul style="list-style-type: none">
  <li style="display: inline">
    ...

...why to fill it with stupid bla-bla?

Watchfire provide the reasoning in the section entitled "Rationale" below the advice.

Rationale

Some access devices will miss a form control if there is no text in it; that is, they will not tell the user the control is there or allow the user to input data. Placing default text in the control forces the access devices to see the control.

However, I do agree with you that some of these items do seem to be overdoing it a bit. You're never going to be able to anticipate and account for every access device/web browser deficiency.

Incidentally, do you know whether the "placeholder text" suggestion relates to a particular checkpoint? I couldn't see a direct mention of it!

Clive

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." (Paul Ehrlich)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To get the best answers from this forum see: faq102-5096

 

[feherke]

Hi

I tried their other suggestion of using a list. I used the following unordered list as a separator

Yes, but I want to make Lynx-friendly sites. Currently my site looks like this in Lynx :

[right]Feherke's words about shell (p1 of 2)[/right]

   [red]skip navigation[/red]

   [blue]script[/blue] : [blue]seq.sh[/blue], [blue]mksfx.sh[/blue], [blue]killrenegade.sh[/blue], [blue]tekwatch.sh[/blue], [blue]lyndex.sh[/blue],
[blue]onceaday.sh[/blue], [blue]minesweeper.sh[/blue].
   [blue]man[/blue] : [blue]man seq.sh[/blue], [blue]man mksfx.sh[/blue], [blue]man killrenegade.sh[/blue], [blue]man tekwatch.sh[/blue], [blue]man lyndex.sh[/blue], [blue]man onceaday.sh[/blue], [blue]man minesweeper.sh[/blue].
   [blue]about[/blue] : [blue]textmode[/blue], [blue]site[/blue], [blue]Feherke[/blue].

Welcome to the Unix shell


   Hi visitor!
   Welcome on rootshell.be...

   This site was born to share some of my minds about the text mode, the
   command interpreter and the command line tools.

If I would use list for the menu, that would spread across several page lengths in Lynx.

Incidentally, do you know whether the "placeholder text" suggestion relates to a particular checkpoint? I couldn't see a direct mention of it!

http://w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#tech-place-holders

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[feherke]

Hi

Greg - The fact that my links could be confusing even for peoples without disability, was completely new for me.

Chris - I read that Dive Into Accessibility. It is not a big bang, but definitely says more about peoples with disabilities then I know.

Clive - The WebXACT validator you suggested seems to be much more finical. I will use it instead of Cynthia.

Foamcow - Sorry for parasiting your thread. Has a good subject and I wish to read other similar articles.

As result of the above discussion I modified my site by :
[ul]
[li]Positioning the content and navigation columns with CSS, so physically the content is at the top of the file. ( The terminal window-like decoration is still table. )[/li]
[li]Added a high contrast color theme to ease reading. The links are emphasized on focus and the [tt]accesskey[/tt]s are displayed. ( Code snippets and outputs may be improved. )[/li]
[li]Provided unique texts for the links. ( But still not idea what could I do with the Site map. )[/li]
[li]The Search input has default text. ( Removed [tt]onfocus[/tt] by the first JavaScript code included in the page. :-( )[/li]
[/ul]
Thank you for your contribution.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/