Validate a page for accessibility

[lolo]

Hi,

I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how validate
my page for accessibility

Thanx for your help

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:43 +0100, lolo <lolo@popol.f r> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how
> validate my page for accessibility
>[/color]


Makes me wounder what you were looking for:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&q= accessibility+c heck&btnG=Zoeke n&lr=>

The site I like is <http://bobby.watchfire .com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp>,
second in the google SERP's of above query.

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, lolo <lolo@popol.f r>
said:
[color=blue]
> I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how validate
> my page for accessibility[/color]

You can't "validate" it as such. The only way to truly know if it is
accessibly is to get lots of people with various abilities/disabilities
to test it.

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[lolo]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Rhoooooo many thanx... sometimes I'm so stupid :((



"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
opsirjoqc5x5vgt s@zoete_b...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:43 +0100, lolo <lolo@popol.f r> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how
>> validate my page for accessibility
>>[/color]
>
>
> Makes me wounder what you were looking for:
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&q= accessibility+c heck&btnG=Zoeke n&lr=>
>
> The site I like is <http://bobby.watchfire .com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp>,
> second in the google SERP's of above query.
>
> --
> Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
> Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
> Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>[/color]

[Steve Pugh]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:43 +0100, "lolo" <lolo@popol.f r> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how validate
>my page for accessibility[/color]

You can't. A page is either valid or it isn't and software can check
for that. But accessibility is much more complex - for example
software can check whether an <img> tag has an alt attribute but it
can't check whether the alt attribute is a suitable alternative for
the image in question.

Booby is one tool but it's crap. <http://bobby.watchfire .com/>
Cynthia Says is better. <http://www.contentqual ity.com/>
Accessibility Valet is good as well.
<http://valet.webthing. com/access/>

Steve

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Barbara de Zoete
<b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> said:
[color=blue]
> The site I like is <http://bobby.watchfire .com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp>,[/color]

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Steve Pugh]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:20:54 +0000, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Booby is one tool but it's crap.[/color]

In context, that was a good typo. ;-)

Steve

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:20:54 +0000, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
> Booby is one tool but it's crap. <http://bobby.watchfire .com/>[/color]

That's news to me. Why do you think Bobby is crap?

[color=blue]
> Cynthia Says is better. <http://www.contentqual ity.com/>
> Accessibility Valet is good as well. <http://valet.webthing. com/access/>
>[/color]

What makes these two better?


--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[lolo]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Many many thanx for all your answers


They' re really helpfull and I'm going to read all ;)

Thanx and cy

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:27:35 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:20:54 +0000, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Booby is one tool but it's crap. <http://bobby.watchfire .com/>[/color]
>
> That's news to me. Why do you think Bobby is crap?
>
>[color=green]
>> Cynthia Says is better. <http://www.contentqual ity.com/>
>> Accessibility Valet is good as well. <http://valet.webthing. com/access/>
>>[/color]
>
> What makes these two better?
>
>[/color]

You can answer, but I'm currently reading
<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html> that was pointed out to
me by Mark. My guess is, I find the answers there.

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Mark Parnell wrote:
[color=blue]
> Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, lolo <lolo@popol.f r>
> said:
>[color=green]
> > I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how validate
> > my page for accessibility[/color]
>
> You can't "validate" it as such.[/color]

Right
[color=blue]
> The only way to truly know if it is accessibly is to get lots of
> people with various abilities/disabilities to test it.[/color]

Ideally, yes. But even if you want to check whether it follows the
WAI guidelines: some of those criteria are objective and can be tested
by rote (which some might agree to call "validation "), but many of the
criteria are subjective and can't possibly be decided by some piece of
software. At best the software can point up an area of concern, in
the hope that the author will understand what to do. At worst it will
tell the author to do the wrong thing (e.g telling them to produce an
alternative text-only site - which should really be a final last
resort when all else has failed - or to supply alternative text for a
transparent positioning image[1], when the real answer it not to use
transparent positioning images at all).

all the best

[1] the results of which can still be groaned over at
http://www.gla.ac.uk/www/ , despite my emphatic protests. And still
claims - so help me -

Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0 for layout only

sigh.

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Mark Parnell wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, lolo <lolo@popol.f r>
>> said:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > I know how validate a page for CSS or HTML, but I didn't found how validate
>> > my page for accessibility[/color]
>>
>> You can't "validate" it as such.[/color]
>
> Right[/color]

Fair enough. But -- *in practice* -- who cares, anymore? As WAI issues
increase on a governmental legal scale, point and shoot 'validation'
becomes a necessity and reality (and all the same, correct terminology
becomes utterly irrelevant). Since you have to deal with public
servants.

The dutch government has some time ago released a bunch of so-called
'guidelines' for 'official' www authoring. Unsurprisingly, Bednarz'
42nd law (gimme a quid and I'll buy you a better government) applies;
you don't even need to be in command of the dutch language to understand
the concluding paragraph of this particular page about character
*encoding* (why 'specifying a charset' is supposedly mandatory for
(x)html)

<http://webrichtlijnen. overheid.nl/handleiding/ontwikkeling/productie/karaktercoderin g/het-web/waarom-belangrijk/>

You are allowed to treble and tremble now.



--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Eric B. Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> As WAI
> issues increase on a governmental legal scale, point and shoot
> 'validation' becomes a necessity and reality (and all the same,
> correct terminology becomes utterly irrelevant). Since you have to
> deal with public servants.[/color]

I'm getting more and more pessimistic about the developments:
WAI guidelines, "accessibil ity" as slogan, and "accessibil ity
validators" have started living a life of their own, in a sphere of
official speech and "policies". As they are applied by people who have
no prerequisites for and no interest in understanding what would really
make pages and services more accessible, they are used as goals
themselves. This means that they are becoming one of the worst enemies
of accessibility.
[color=blue]
> - - you don't even need to be in command of
> the dutch language to understand the concluding paragraph of this
> particular page about character *encoding* (why 'specifying a
> charset' is supposedly mandatory for (x)html)
>
> <http://webrichtlijnen.overheid.nl/ha...eling/producti
> e/karaktercoderin g/het-web/waarom-belangrijk/>[/color]

The misunderstandin g is obvious enough (to people who understand the
subject matter), when there is a quoted statement in English about the
need for specifying the document character set, in a context that
purports to explain the encoding issue.

But that material doesn't seem to be too bad in general - they even
present a sensible-looking treatise on alt texts, though under a URL
that doesn't really set a good example of URL design:
<http://webrichtlijnen.overheid.nl/ha...ing/productie/
afbeeldingen-alternatieve-tekst/alt-attribuut/
alternatieve-tekst-schrijven/>

Maybe the document character set stuff is just a singular oversight.
After all, to be honest, we have _all_ misunderstood that issue.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Darin McGrew]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:[color=blue]
> WAI guidelines, "accessibil ity" as slogan, and "accessibil ity
> validators" have started living a life of their own, in a sphere of
> official speech and "policies". As they are applied by people who have
> no prerequisites for and no interest in understanding what would really
> make pages and services more accessible, they are used as goals
> themselves. This means that they are becoming one of the worst enemies
> of accessibility.[/color]

There have been times when I've pointed out accessibility/usability
problems in web sites, and I've gotten the excuse, "We don't need to fix
anything. The site is Section 508 compliant."

Accessibility isn't the goal. Checking off "Accessibil ity" on the list of
requirements is the goal.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanford alumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp. com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it again."

[Nick Kew]

Re: Validate a page for accessibility

In article <opsirkzbp0x5vg ts@zoete_b>,
"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> You can answer, but I'm currently reading
> <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html> that was pointed out to
> me by Mark. My guess is, I find the answers there.[/color]

Jukka is something of a cynic on the issue.

He makes a good point about limiting your reliance on checkers.
A fundamental fault with Bobby is that it pushes you towards
those "bobby approved" bogosities, which tend to push you into
*bad* practice, including things that are downright wrong,
in some instances. He is right to warn against that.

The more useful function of an accessibility checker is to draw
your attention to potential problems, and help you make an
*informed choice* about whether something needs fixing. That in
turn helps educate a user about the issues, so the more you use
it, the less you still need it. It's then like a spellcheck for
someone who can spell but suffers occasional typos. For users
familiar with the principles, it becomes more useful for QA
purposes: documenting compliance and maintaining an audit trail.

This at least is the philosophy behind Valet - which is the one
I happen to know:-) I don't think Jukka addresses himself to
anything more than the first part ("bobby compliance") of that.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/