WAI ... Does it absolutely matter?
Moderator: General Moderators
That's an interestign website, however, it really doesn't help any. I get a ton of warnings that make absolutely no sense with no explanation, and the fact that they don't tell me which lines its warning me on..... It's funny, on a page with only three things... Three images. Nothing more (Two images are links) it has the nerve to tell me I have over 50 warnings and 1 error? Heaven forbid I have two images that are linked NEAR each other.
- Skittlewidth
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 9:18 am
- Location: Kent, UK
The image links are throwing up an error because there is only whitespace between them, which a screen reader could not see. A simple way around this (works for XHTML transitional anyway) is to put
between them. It won't disrupt the layout of your page as it won't output to the screen, but it will satisfy the requirement for screen readers.
Hope that helps.
Code: Select all
<span style="display:none"> | </span>Hope that helps.
- Skittlewidth
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 9:18 am
- Location: Kent, UK
The issue is not so much that they are images, but that they are links.
The rational page on WebXACT explains
I've been using WebXACT for a little while now, and it does tell you what line errors occur on, and even gives you the code fragment its complaining about if you click on the "expand code fragments" link above each section. Perhaps you were only looking at the General Summary page. If you click on the tabs such as Accessibilty at the top of the page you get more detail on each error and a link to an explanation on why it failed.
The rational page on WebXACT explains
http://webxact2.watchfire.com/themes/st ... t_G35.htmlRationale
One common problem for many visually impaired web users is identifying which pieces of text are links and which are not. To a sighted person, links are often displayed blue, underlined, or bold depending on the web browser. To help people who are visually impaired find all the hypertext links on a page, a variety of screen readers have adopted techniques to list each of the links consecutively. However, if there is no text or image separating two adjacent links, even if they occur on consecutive lines, some screen readers will incorrectly read adjacent links as a single link.
I've been using WebXACT for a little while now, and it does tell you what line errors occur on, and even gives you the code fragment its complaining about if you click on the "expand code fragments" link above each section. Perhaps you were only looking at the General Summary page. If you click on the tabs such as Accessibilty at the top of the page you get more detail on each error and a link to an explanation on why it failed.
It tells me a FEW of the lines, but then has about 100x more warnings without lines at all...
And I'm sorry, I'm not dumping my images so that i can have size 72px blue text that has underlines on hover... Just so I can incorporate the non-existant disabled people who view my website. My site is extremely basic, in terms of XHTML... And if one can't possibly figure out what's going on, there's not much I can do about it. I'm not going to revert back to a text-based website. (No images, no stylesheets, just a ugly-assed text website). I find the majority of these 'warnings' on that website, are illogical to say the least. I doubt if I could EVER make my site not show a single warning on that WCAG validator, nor do I think it's worth the effor. Much infinitely larger websites and more popular websites (who actually might have disabled viewers), don't even come CLOSE to valid by any standards, even the basic HTML/XHTML standards. I think I'll just stick to XHTML 1.1/CSS 2.0 validation and not worry about much other stuff... Honestly, it isn't worth this much effort.
And I'm sorry, I'm not dumping my images so that i can have size 72px blue text that has underlines on hover... Just so I can incorporate the non-existant disabled people who view my website. My site is extremely basic, in terms of XHTML... And if one can't possibly figure out what's going on, there's not much I can do about it. I'm not going to revert back to a text-based website. (No images, no stylesheets, just a ugly-assed text website). I find the majority of these 'warnings' on that website, are illogical to say the least. I doubt if I could EVER make my site not show a single warning on that WCAG validator, nor do I think it's worth the effor. Much infinitely larger websites and more popular websites (who actually might have disabled viewers), don't even come CLOSE to valid by any standards, even the basic HTML/XHTML standards. I think I'll just stick to XHTML 1.1/CSS 2.0 validation and not worry about much other stuff... Honestly, it isn't worth this much effort.
- Skittlewidth
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 9:18 am
- Location: Kent, UK
If you are here for help, ask for it.theda wrote:I doubt if I could EVER make my site not show a single warning on that WCAG validator, nor do I think it's worth the effor.
If you do not want to comply with the WAI, then don't.
Continuing to complain that a standard that you choose to comply to is too difficult isn't helping anyone. Thousands of other sites work daily to acheive compliance, and manage it. If you choose not to, fine - don't.
And many do. If you need justification for not meeting the standard, talk to a lawyer. Don't use it as an excuse to attack a standard that is trying to help more people get information.theda wrote: Much infinitely larger websites and more popular websites (who actually might have disabled viewers), don't even come CLOSE to valid by any standards, even the basic HTML/XHTML standards.
This is practically impossible. WCAG validators warn everytime there is possibility of accessibility issue. They can only look at structure of the page. They cannot understand the meaning of the content.theda wrote:I doubt if I could EVER make my site not show a single warning on that WCAG validator
For examble if you have valid CSS picture in the page
Code: Select all
<img style="border:0;" src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss"
alt="This page uses valid CSS">And some basic things. These all are manual checkpoints.1.1 If an image conveys important information beyond what is in its alternative text, provide an extended description.
2.1 If you use color to convey information, make sure the information is also represented another way.
This can be confusing especially for PHP freaks. In PHP, warning is always something serious as we all know. WCAG warnings nature is like PHP notices.4.1 Identify any changes in the document's language.
6.1 If style sheets are ignored or unsupported, ensure that pages are still readable and usable.
14.1 Use the simplest and most straightforward language that is possible.
The thing is... My site:
1. Limited redirects (only when cookie is set, otherwise, there are none)
2. All images have descriptions.
3. All images have alternative text
4. All pages have a description at the top of the page.
5. Any cookies set are due to the users choice. (I even have a P3P token)
6. User can choose how he/she wants to view my website (Language and Theme).
7. XHTML/CSS is valid 1.1, and 2.0 respectively...
8. I don't have animations on my website (I have a grand total of 8 images on my website, and 3 on my entrance page).
9. All links are clearly shown.
10. Coloring is extremely simple.
1. Limited redirects (only when cookie is set, otherwise, there are none)
2. All images have descriptions.
3. All images have alternative text
4. All pages have a description at the top of the page.
5. Any cookies set are due to the users choice. (I even have a P3P token)
6. User can choose how he/she wants to view my website (Language and Theme).
7. XHTML/CSS is valid 1.1, and 2.0 respectively...
8. I don't have animations on my website (I have a grand total of 8 images on my website, and 3 on my entrance page).
9. All links are clearly shown.
10. Coloring is extremely simple.
Theda, I'm really puzzled about your last post.
There is only *one* question that matters: Is your site providing a service to the public, requiring it to meet WAI standards?
If you aren't making money (providing a commercial good or service) from the site, then it doesn't apply to you.
If it doesn't apply to you, none of this discussion matters.
You've mentioned multiple times that its not a public site ("only me and my friends"), and haven't really answered whether its providing a commercial good/service, although from your posts, I suspect not.
Even if it does apply to you, practically every post you've made is an apology or complaint about why your site can't/won't/shouldn't meet the standard. If you've decided not to comply, there is also nothing more to discuss.
The only reason to continue the discussion is if your site not only is required to comply, but you've decided to comply. If both are true, stop giving excuses and reasons why you can't or won't - they don't matter here, because we aren't the ones that will defend you in court!
Accessibility is a lofty goal, and a worthwhile goal to persue. I'm more than happy to help people attain it. But frankly, every post you've made insults, belittles or complains about it, and if thats all you want to do, its not helping anyone.
Worse, it discourages others from trying and acheiving it - reducing the number of usable sites on the net today.
There is only *one* question that matters: Is your site providing a service to the public, requiring it to meet WAI standards?
If you aren't making money (providing a commercial good or service) from the site, then it doesn't apply to you.
If it doesn't apply to you, none of this discussion matters.
You've mentioned multiple times that its not a public site ("only me and my friends"), and haven't really answered whether its providing a commercial good/service, although from your posts, I suspect not.
Even if it does apply to you, practically every post you've made is an apology or complaint about why your site can't/won't/shouldn't meet the standard. If you've decided not to comply, there is also nothing more to discuss.
The only reason to continue the discussion is if your site not only is required to comply, but you've decided to comply. If both are true, stop giving excuses and reasons why you can't or won't - they don't matter here, because we aren't the ones that will defend you in court!
Accessibility is a lofty goal, and a worthwhile goal to persue. I'm more than happy to help people attain it. But frankly, every post you've made insults, belittles or complains about it, and if thats all you want to do, its not helping anyone.
Worse, it discourages others from trying and acheiving it - reducing the number of usable sites on the net today.
Before I answer you, my website is valid to 508 standard.
Next:
1. If it's on the web, it's public
2. I will eventually sell stuff (Right now, I'm just developing and learning).
3. The amount of useable sites is in the billions, my friend. ... Ease of use may be a different story.
Regardless, with these standards, you don't see American companies (HP, Microsoft) building their websites that are compliant... Even though they serve business to UK-shoppers.
Yes, I do discourage anyone from the WAI standards. Not because I am elitist and hate every little 'inferior,' but rather because they aren't good at what they do. W3C standards for web-languages is extremely useful. I think that accessibility standards should exist, but a lot of WAI standards are extremely insensitive to the reality around them.
For the most part, how many blind people surf the web? Not a high percentage. I honestly don't know if there is a simple way for them TO surf the web. 99% of the web is text and images. How does a blind person read that? Audio? Sure. Braille? Hah, good luck. I doubt people have the time, money, or harddrive space to record all of their content into audio.
Deaf people. Let's see, they shouldn't have much of a problem, as the majority of the web is text/image. Sure, they can't listen to MSN radio or all the annoying Windows sounds, but that may be a benefit sometimes.
The only thing I can think of is making websites easily viewable by older people (by having colors and fonts that aren't hard on the eyes)...
For the most part, my website is compliant with WAI 1, 2, 3 and 508. But a lot of what they ask for is loony.
Hell, even W3C's WAI page fails #3 "Not enough whitespace."
Next:
1. If it's on the web, it's public
2. I will eventually sell stuff (Right now, I'm just developing and learning).
3. The amount of useable sites is in the billions, my friend. ... Ease of use may be a different story.
Regardless, with these standards, you don't see American companies (HP, Microsoft) building their websites that are compliant... Even though they serve business to UK-shoppers.
Yes, I do discourage anyone from the WAI standards. Not because I am elitist and hate every little 'inferior,' but rather because they aren't good at what they do. W3C standards for web-languages is extremely useful. I think that accessibility standards should exist, but a lot of WAI standards are extremely insensitive to the reality around them.
For the most part, how many blind people surf the web? Not a high percentage. I honestly don't know if there is a simple way for them TO surf the web. 99% of the web is text and images. How does a blind person read that? Audio? Sure. Braille? Hah, good luck. I doubt people have the time, money, or harddrive space to record all of their content into audio.
Deaf people. Let's see, they shouldn't have much of a problem, as the majority of the web is text/image. Sure, they can't listen to MSN radio or all the annoying Windows sounds, but that may be a benefit sometimes.
The only thing I can think of is making websites easily viewable by older people (by having colors and fonts that aren't hard on the eyes)...
For the most part, my website is compliant with WAI 1, 2, 3 and 508. But a lot of what they ask for is loony.
Hell, even W3C's WAI page fails #3 "Not enough whitespace."
They don't claim to be WAI-AAA compliant.theda wrote:Hell, even W3C's WAI page fails #3 "Not enough whitespace."
You say you have taken consideration on layout, structure and colours of the page. Be happy with it. Even if you think WCAG is useless or loony, you have done more than many other developers. You are more WAI compliant than you wish to admit.
WAI page wrote:WAI develops...
guidelines widely regarded as the international standard for Web accessibility
support materials to help understand and implement Web accessibility
resources, through international collaboration
Please note the difference between a public site, and a site offering a public service. There is one, and I specifically spelled it out.theda wrote:1. If it's on the web, it's public
Then you do have certain accessibility requirements to meet here in the US. Failure to do so could allow a user to sue you. Its called section 508, and you can read more about it here: http://www.section508.gov/theda wrote:2. I will eventually sell stuff (Right now, I'm just developing and learning).
Actually, quite a few do. In fact, the two you mentioned do fulfill their 508 requirements - specifically to ensure that everyone can access their page.theda wrote:Regardless, with these standards, you don't see American companies (HP, Microsoft) building their websites that are compliant... Even though they serve business to UK-shoppers.
By what standard? Are you disabled? Do you need special accomodations to be able to use the web?theda wrote:Yes, I do discourage anyone from the WAI standards. Not because I am elitist and hate every little 'inferior,' but rather because they aren't good at what they do.
They are *excellent* at what they do - encourage and require websites to embrace the concept that sites need to be designed with *everyone* in mind - not just what the designer THINKS is accessible.
Agreed. And they don't at all acheive accessibility.theda wrote:W3C standards for web-languages is extremely useful.
That point I will agree with - they are extremely challenging.theda wrote: I think that accessibility standards should exist, but a lot of WAI standards are extremely insensitive to the reality around them.
It doesn't matter if it is *one* user - they have just as much right to use that site. Thats the whole point of disability laws - to ensure that they have just as much right to live, function, and enjoy life as anyone else.theda wrote:For the most part, how many blind people surf the web?
There is. Its called a screenreader. A good example is jaws.theda wrote:I honestly don't know if there is a simple way for them TO surf the web.
Again, your arrogance is both surprising, and disgusting. One of the finest security researchers I've ever met is blind, and has a laptop with a braille keyboard - and I assure you, he could out code you, me, and probably Feyd on a good day.theda wrote: 99% of the web is text and images. How does a blind person read that? Audio? Sure. Braille? Hah, good luck.
And then hack the planet.
They don't have to. If you code to accessible standards, the screen reader takes care of it. Which goes back to the importance of accessibility standards. By implementing them, you make your content available to more people.theda wrote:I doubt people have the time, money, or harddrive space to record all of their content into audio.
You've left out color blind users, mentally challenged users, people with eyesight contrast issues.. Thats why you aren't the best person to ask about accessibility, and why there are standards.theda wrote: The only thing I can think of is making websites easily viewable by older people (by having colors and fonts that aren't hard on the eyes)...
Great. Then what is the further discussion about? A chance for you to complain about a standard that has and continues to help people? A chance for you to repeat that you aren't going to code to the standard, when you aren't required to, don't have any intention to, and insult it anyways?theda wrote: For the most part, my website is compliant with WAI 1, 2, 3 and 508.
I mean, really.
Let me put things in dramatic perspective for you.
At least one poster in THIS thread uses assisted browsing technology, and does enjoy a realworld benefit from accessibility standards.
Small world? Yes, but it doesn't stop you from making comments about technologies that help people YOU KNOW to access your site. Not to mention encourages others to have the same disdain and disrespect for people who already have enough challenges.
Please - if you don't like WAI, simply don't comply with it. You aren't required to. The rest of the world would be better off without your comments. How many people indeed.