HTML Editor

[Brian]

Re: HTML Editor

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
> They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
> circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
> hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.[/color]

But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
asserting that "table-layout websites...work ."

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Barry Pearson]

Re: HTML Editor

Isofarro wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>> Isofarro wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Barry Pearson wrote:
>>>
>>>> CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
>>>> positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.
>>>
>>> CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
>>> content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
>>> improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
>>> websites.[/color]
>>
>> I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.[/color]
>
> Certainly doesn't look it. Do you have proof that these table-layout
> websites have actually been through accessibility testing (a completed
> checklist of something like WCAG would be sufficient).[/color]

I drive a motor car that is soundly engineered by any plausible standard. It
is a 3-door coupe, needing a bit of agility to get in and out. It works well
for its target market/audience.

By all means try to persuade those news sites, etc, to include the users of
accessibility technology in their target audience, and test for them. I don't
know whether or not they had such users in the target audience. If they were,
I don't know to what extent they tested for them. Perhaps they did test, and
said "good enough". It isn't just the disabled who have problems with those
sites. People with narrow screens also see rather a lot of content that has to
be scrolled a lot. In that case, I doubt if users of those screens were in the
target audience. There is no rule that they had to be.

I believe the problem with news sites is not the use of tables. Even without
the tables, there is lots of stuff on a page that has to be navigated around.
Much, sometimes most, of what is on the page is not the reason for going to
that specific page. I believe the single thing that would help is if there was
a common way to get to the article text with one action. The simplest, and
perhaps most obvious way, would be if each article header was the <h1> element
on the page. Some news sites do exactly that. See example below (on a topic
relevant here). Most sites don't.

http://education.independent.co.uk/further/story.jsp?story=449223

I think predictable hierarchic structure is more important than the
table/tableless debate. I try to ensure that all my inner pages have their
unique content (rather than overheads & navigation) starting at <h1>. (There
are some known exceptions that will be fixed in future, and some pages are
continuations of large sections and so start <h2>). Even the photograph pages
have the photograph as the sole content of an <h1> element, in the expectation
that a blind person can get there immediately and hear the alt-text. (I
suspect that is probably a pointless gesture - I doubt if many blind people go
to my photograph pages).

When a page has unique content, administrative information, all the navigation
links, and the same-on-all-pages site material, rapid access to any one of
these needs some different from tableless layout. I've seen tableless layout
pages that use a list for the navigation links, turned into buttons using CSS.
But how do you get there? Do you put it before the unique content? After? Do
you have to learn this afresh for each new site visited?

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Re: HTML Editor

Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Isofarro wrote:[color=green]
>> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Isofarro wrote:
>>>> Barry Pearson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
>>>>> positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.
>>>>
>>>> CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
>>>> content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
>>>> improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
>>>> websites.
>>>
>>> I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.[/color]
>>
>> Certainly doesn't look it. Do you have proof that these table-layout
>> websites have actually been through accessibility testing (a completed
>> checklist of something like WCAG would be sufficient).[/color]
>
> I drive a motor car that is soundly engineered by any plausible standard.[/color]

Which is documented through a Quality Assurance process before being
delivered to the public. (There will be a record at the plant where the car
was put together). Now can you _absolutely_ say the same about these
websites? I quite doubt it.


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Barry Pearson]

Re: HTML Editor

[This is a consolidated response to a number of posts, to avoid repetition]

Isofarro wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.[/color]
>
> Understanding the content rather than receiving it in an unstrutured
> and random way.[/color]

See comments later about structure.

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.
>>>
>>> As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
>>> browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those
>>> methods.[/color]
>>
>> That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000
>> high-information table-layout pages onto the web each day.[/color]
>
> No. You're the one advocating using their authoring practices,
> though. You're the one telling everying here that we can rely on
> table-layout methods, when we cannot.[/color]

See comments later about accessibility sites using table-layout.

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>> I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
>> They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
>> circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
>> hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.[/color]
>
> But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
> so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
> asserting that "table-layout websites...work ."[/color]

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some sites concerned
with accessibility don't use proper structure. There appears to be an attitude
of "do as I say, not do as I do". I provide some examples below.

I am wondering whether the main obstacle to achieving accessibility on the web
is the "accessibil ity industry". The people and organisations who should be
providing guidance, but instead appear to be making it look as hard as
possible. Then perhaps the second obstacle to achieving accessibility on the
web are those who promote their own preferences under the heading of
"accessibility" . For example, people who claim that a key to accessibility is
tableless layout, when proper examination shows that this still leaves major
issues unsolved.

I'll show examples of the obstacles that the accessibility industry erects,
then examples of how they don't always follow their own guidance.

Here is an incredibly simple page. The HTML is less than 2KB. The overall
page-layout is tableless. It starts with a <h1>. It validates at W3C as 4.01
Strict. Its CSS validates at W3C with no errors or warnings. It is just one
photograph and a few words!

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/pictures/birds/bl01_02_37_2.htm

I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is what it says about that page. It is
an extract from the 5KB XML report.

- Non spacer IMG with equivalent ALT [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL --
- Non spacer IMG needs LONGDESC [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL -- Non spacer image may need a LONGDESC attribute.
- Color is not essential [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2.1] -- MANUAL --
- Colors are visible [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2] -- MANUAL --
- Style sheets should not be necessary [Section 508 1194.22(d); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 6.1] -- MANUAL -- The page uses style sheets to present its
content. There might be browsers unable to understand style sheets or provided
style sheets may conflict with user-specified style information.
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Use clear language for site's content [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1] --
MANUAL --
- Clarify natural language usage [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 4.1] -- MANUAL --

What the heck am I supposed to do with that? I have 337 tableless Strict pages
on the web. No one has paid me to do it. Does anyone believe for a second that
I will bother even to check what all that means? Or that anyone else in the
same situation will bother? Unless someone pays some serious money for me to
bother! That sort of thing simply generates contempt for the accessibility
industry. Not contempt for disabled people - they have my sympathy, especially
because they are being represented in that way! I won't copy here what "Bobby"
says about that page. It is along the same lines, and 6KB in size.

As I said, I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is their home page:

http://www.usablenet.com/

Fascinating! Primarily table-layout with several <h1>s on the page. The <h1>s
appear to be headings for links, not for the main content of the page.

I've mentioned "Bobby". Primarily table-layout. Like a number of Bobby pages,
it has an <h1>. Which says "Bobby". It doesn't identify the unique content of
the page. That starts at <h2>.

http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/advanced.jsp

The Cynthia SaysT portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of
ICDRI..., The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter... and
HiSoftware...

http://www.contentquality.com/

It has a little but not much table-oriented layout (it is basically simple and
serial), but no <hn> that I have spotted.

The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others need to stop
pursuing their own agendas under the heading of accessibility. Then perhaps we
can move constructively towards a genuinely more accessible web.

I believe that the single most important principle should be "use <h1> for the
start of the page's unique content". That is what I try to do. A nice, simple
rule, that might be cheap to apply across many sites. Even the accessibility
industry's sites could probably manage something so simple!

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Pearson]

Re: HTML Editor

[This is a consolidated response to a number of posts, to avoid repetition]

Isofarro wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.[/color]
>
> Understanding the content rather than receiving it in an unstrutured
> and random way.[/color]

See comments later about structure.

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.
>>>
>>> As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
>>> browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those
>>> methods.[/color]
>>
>> That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000
>> high-information table-layout pages onto the web each day.[/color]
>
> No. You're the one advocating using their authoring practices,
> though. You're the one telling everying here that we can rely on
> table-layout methods, when we cannot.[/color]

See comments later about accessibility sites using table-layout.

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>> I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
>> They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
>> circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
>> hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.[/color]
>
> But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
> so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
> asserting that "table-layout websites...work ."[/color]

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some sites concerned
with accessibility don't use proper structure. There appears to be an attitude
of "do as I say, not do as I do". I provide some examples below.

I am wondering whether the main obstacle to achieving accessibility on the web
is the "accessibil ity industry". The people and organisations who should be
providing guidance, but instead appear to be making it look as hard as
possible. Then perhaps the second obstacle to achieving accessibility on the
web are those who promote their own preferences under the heading of
"accessibility" . For example, people who claim that a key to accessibility is
tableless layout, when proper examination shows that this still leaves major
issues unsolved.

I'll show examples of the obstacles that the accessibility industry erects,
then examples of how they don't always follow their own guidance.

Here is an incredibly simple page. The HTML is less than 2KB. The overall
page-layout is tableless. It starts with a <h1>. It validates at W3C as 4.01
Strict. Its CSS validates at W3C with no errors or warnings. It is just one
photograph and a few words!

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/pictures/birds/bl01_02_37_2.htm

I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is what it says about that page. It is
an extract from the 5KB XML report.

- Non spacer IMG with equivalent ALT [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL --
- Non spacer IMG needs LONGDESC [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL -- Non spacer image may need a LONGDESC attribute.
- Color is not essential [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2.1] -- MANUAL --
- Colors are visible [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2] -- MANUAL --
- Style sheets should not be necessary [Section 508 1194.22(d); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 6.1] -- MANUAL -- The page uses style sheets to present its
content. There might be browsers unable to understand style sheets or provided
style sheets may conflict with user-specified style information.
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Use clear language for site's content [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1] --
MANUAL --
- Clarify natural language usage [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 4.1] -- MANUAL --

What the heck am I supposed to do with that? I have 337 tableless Strict pages
on the web. No one has paid me to do it. Does anyone believe for a second that
I will bother even to check what all that means? Or that anyone else in the
same situation will bother? Unless someone pays some serious money for me to
bother! That sort of thing simply generates contempt for the accessibility
industry. Not contempt for disabled people - they have my sympathy, especially
because they are being represented in that way! I won't copy here what "Bobby"
says about that page. It is along the same lines, and 6KB in size.

As I said, I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is their home page:

http://www.usablenet.com/

Fascinating! Primarily table-layout with several <h1>s on the page. The <h1>s
appear to be headings for links, not for the main content of the page.

I've mentioned "Bobby". Primarily table-layout. Like a number of Bobby pages,
it has an <h1>. Which says "Bobby". It doesn't identify the unique content of
the page. That starts at <h2>.

http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/advanced.jsp

The Cynthia SaysT portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of
ICDRI..., The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter... and
HiSoftware...

http://www.contentquality.com/

It has a little but not much table-oriented layout (it is basically simple and
serial), but no <hn> that I have spotted.

The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others need to stop
pursuing their own agendas under the heading of accessibility. Then perhaps we
can move constructively towards a genuinely more accessible web.

I believe that the single most important principle should be "use <h1> for the
start of the page's unique content". That is what I try to do. A nice, simple
rule, that might be cheap to apply across many sites. Even the accessibility
industry's sites could probably manage something so simple!

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Re: HTML Editor

Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.[/color]

List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.

<navel-fluff snipped>

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Jim Ley]

Re: HTML Editor

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:04:06 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Barry Pearson wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.[/color]
>
>List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.[/color]

http://web.archive.org/web/20020609044816/http://www.w3.org/

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Brian]

Re: HTML Editor

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some
> sites concerned with accessibility don't use proper structure.[/color]

In both cases, those sites should make corrections.
[color=blue]
> There appears to be an attitude of "do as I say, not do as I do".[/color]
[color=blue]
> The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others
> need to stop pursuing their own agendas under the heading of
> accessibility.[/color]

Are the people responsible for those badly coded accessibility sites
participating in this thread? Are they even participants in the ciwa*
groups? If not, then your points looks like a strawman argument from
someone quick to accuse others of using strawman tactics.
[color=blue]
> I believe that the single most important principle should be "use
> <h1> for the start of the page's unique content".[/color]

Has anyone suggested that using h1 is a bad idea? Or is this
a(nother) strawman argument?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Isofarro]

Re: HTML Editor

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:04:06 +0000, Isofarro
> <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Barry Pearson wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.[/color]
>>
>>List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.[/color]
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/200206090...://www.w3.org/[/color]

(I'm ignoring the dynamic main content bit, and focusing on the static /
template-based portions of the page).

Hmmm... It definitely fails checkpoint 3.2:
* validate to published formal grammars
* <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-identify-grammar>
*
<http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http% 3A%2F%2Fweb.arc hive.org%2Fweb% 2F2002060904481 6%2Fhttp%3A%2F% 2Fwww.w3.org%2F >
because of an invalid attribute on the script element. If it were something
like an unescaped entity in the constantly updated part of the document -
its forgiveable. But not when its a static part of the page.

The more relevant checkpoint: I don't see how it passes checkpoint 3.3
* Use style sheets to control layout and presentation
* <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-style-sheets>

Yes, it looks to linearise decently, so checkpoint 5.3 is okay.

Couple of oopsies on the search form:
* Not clear the form is a search form until after the first radio button
* No explicit labels for form fields.
* It would make more sense putting the radio buttons after the text (IMO)

And one more poke at the javascript - the usage of <!-- -->on an
XHTML-Transitional page, should that not be <![CDATA[ ]]>?


Overall, it is a good attempt at an accessible layout - one of the better
ones I've seen. A few little things, but checkpoint 3.3 is, IMO, where it
does fail, because of a tabled-control layout instead of a stylesheet
controlled layout. Am I reading too much into 3.3?


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Alan J. Flavell]

CDATA and XHTML, was Re: HTML Editor

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Isofarro wrote:
[color=blue]
> And one more poke at the javascript - the usage of <!-- -->on an
> XHTML-Transitional page, should that not be <![CDATA[ ]]>?[/color]

That whole area is a horrible mess, which is why the W3C
recommendation is not to attempt using inlined JS in XHTML. Sounds as
if they didn't follow their own good advice on that...

There's a truly heroic formula been posted in several variations, that
is supposed to be compatible with all of the applicable formal rules,
as well as being digestible by both HTML-ish client agents and by
XHTML-ish client agents; but even in its original SGML variant it was
disowned by its author[1], and the XML-ised version is, if anything,
worse.

See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc9orfod13100c@ corp.supernews. com

cheers

[1] Since he disowned it, may I say who he is? Well, it's in the
record somewhere, so I suppose I can say Arjun Ray.

[Isofarro]

Re: CDATA and XHTML, was Re: HTML Editor

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
> alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc9orfod13100c@ corp.supernews. com[/color]

Ahh, thanks for that reference. I'm going to need it really soon. As part of
evangelising webstandards where I work, I've tried to push developers to
put their javascript in external files, but there are reasons not to do it.
I'll give the above a go - perhaps I get lucky and scare a few developers
into submission. (Well they are Java developers)

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: CDATA and XHTML, was Re: HTML Editor

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Isofarro wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
> > See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
> > alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc9orfod13100c@ corp.supernews. com[/color]
>
> Ahh, thanks for that reference.[/color]

Well, I see the thread got somewhat fragmented in Google. There's
further discussion in the thread which contains
vcivr9aherlce4@ corp.supernews. com , just in case you miss it.

I don't think we ever quite got a "right" answer, although some of
the ones we got were "good enough for government work" as our
transpondian friends put it.