Building Accessible Website

[John F. Carr]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <c75jfn$ictmr$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:40963bbe$ 0$558$b45e6eb0@ senator-bedfellow.mit.e du...[color=green]
>> In article <c6trna$fsooa$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics are
>> >used. Simply put, avoid blinking.[/color]
>>
>> How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
>> configured to blink or animate?[/color]
>
>Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than anyone
>else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a device
>whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library or
>at an Internet cafe?[/color]

Because they know that the web is full of content that is harmful to
them and they need to take special precautions.

[color=blue]
>How few of them does there have to be, before it
>becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?[/color]

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.


--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)

[Kris]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <4096b3c7$0$567 $b45e6eb0@senat or-bedfellow.mit.e du>,
jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> >How few of them does there have to be, before it
> >becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?[/color]
>
> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
> while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article Kris wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <4096b3c7$0$567 $b45e6eb0@senat or-bedfellow.mit.e du>,
> jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >How few of them does there have to be, before it
> > >becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?[/color]
> >
> > A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
> > while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]
>
> What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
> uses blinking animations?[/color]

Bogosity alert. It's about 100% sure that there is nothing that makes
sence on animated link.



--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website


"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:4096b3c7$0 $567$b45e6eb0@s enator-bedfellow.mit.e du...[color=blue]
> In article <c75jfn$ictmr$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> >"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message
> >news:40963bbe$ 0$558$b45e6eb0@ senator-bedfellow.mit.e du...[color=darkred]
> >> In article <c6trna$fsooa$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics[/color][/color][/color]
are[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >used. Simply put, avoid blinking.
> >>
> >> How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
> >> configured to blink or animate?[/color]
> >
> >Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than[/color][/color]
anyone[color=blue][color=green]
> >else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a[/color][/color]
device[color=blue][color=green]
> >whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library[/color][/color]
or[color=blue][color=green]
> >at an Internet cafe?[/color]
>
> Because they know that the web is full of content that is harmful to
> them and they need to take special precautions.[/color]

In other words, it's more important to feed your compulsion to use blinking
and flashing (which serve no necessary function AND which annoy many, if not
most, people) than to help assure the safety of the browsing experience for
other people wherever they go. Nice.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >How few of them does there have to be, before it
> >becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?[/color]
>
> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,[/color]

You're a real prince.
[color=blue]
> while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]

[John F. Carr]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <kristiaan-04FC14.23100503 052004@news1.ne ws.xs4all.nl>,
Kris <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> wrote:[color=blue]
>In article <4096b3c7$0$567 $b45e6eb0@senat or-bedfellow.mit.e du>,
> jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >How few of them does there have to be, before it
>> >becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?[/color]
>>
>> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
>> while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]
>
>What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
>uses blinking animations?[/color]

The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
loading.)

--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)

[Brian]

Re: Building Accessible Website

John F. Carr wrote:
[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> How few of them does there have to be, before it becomes acceptable
>> to trigger seizures?[/color]
>
> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored[/color]

I do hope you are joking.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Pierre Goiffon]

Re: Building Accessible Website

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns94DECBF C3A250jkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31[color=blue][color=green]
>> What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
>> equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content?[/color]
>
> Support to OBJECT is still poor[/color]

Maybe in some case CSS can be an answer. An exemple here :

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/

But of course, it's usable only for simple image maps - complex ones can't
be recoded using this technique.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Building Accessible Website


"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:4096cc8b$0 $563$b45e6eb0@s enator-bedfellow.mit.e du...[color=blue]
> In article <kristiaan-04FC14.23100503 052004@news1.ne ws.xs4all.nl>,
> Kris <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> wrote:[color=green]
> >In article <4096b3c7$0$567 $b45e6eb0@senat or-bedfellow.mit.e du>,
> > jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> >How few of them does there have to be, before it
> >> >becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?
> >>
> >> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
> >> while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]
> >
> >What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
> >uses blinking animations?[/color]
>
> The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
> trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
> they are annoying and add no value."[/color]

Laura's point may have been to ask what need there is on the part of the
general public for web sites to have flashing bits, that it would outweigh
the accessibility-related reasons not to.

[CJM]

Re: Building Accessible Website


"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .net> wrote in message
news:1fn99017mn odmterdeomndssv g5l4tchuq@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> Jukka Korpela mentioned a few months ago that the EU doesn't have
> requirements for accessibility, only recommendations . Sorry, I don't
> know where to find them.
>[/color]

AFAIK, the EU does not have any standards or even recommendations . [The EU
issues directives that member nations should/must incorporate into their
laws]

Recent changes made to the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) means
that web accessibility is now *implicitly* covered. When I say implicitly, I
mean there are no guidelines to indicate what determines whether a website
is accessible or not - the law says that businesses are expectly to
undertake 'reasonable steps' to provide access to employment & services to
people with disabilities... such are providing an accessible website, or
providing screen readers and other appropriate tools. However, these
requirements have not yet been tested in the courts, ie have not been
enforced. I think there are a case or two working their way to the courts
soon, but nothing has happened yet.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_rnib003060.hcsp#P16_2626

Chris

[Kris]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In article <4096cc8b$0$563 $b45e6eb0@senat or-bedfellow.mit.e du>,
jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
> >> while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.[/color]
> >
> >What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
> >uses blinking animations?[/color]
>
> The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
> trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
> they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
> latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
> a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
> browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
> loading.)[/color]

You missed the point.

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

[Craig Cockburn]

Re: Building Accessible Website

In message <c78b4a$sma2$1@ ID-209813.news.uni-berlin.de>, CJM
<cjmwork@yahoo. co.uk> writes[color=blue]
>
>Recent changes made to the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) means
>that web accessibility is now *implicitly* covered. When I say implicitly, I
>mean there are no guidelines to indicate what determines whether a website
>is accessible or not - the law says that businesses are expectly to
>undertake 'reasonable steps' to provide access to employment & services to
>people with disabilities... such are providing an accessible website, or
>providing screen readers and other appropriate tools. However, these
>requirements have not yet been tested in the courts, ie have not been
>enforced. I think there are a case or two working their way to the courts
>soon, but nothing has happened yet.
>
>http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups...icWebsite/publ
>ic_rnib003060. hcsp#P16_2626
>[/color]
Until there is a legal precedent, general legal opinion is that WAI
level 1 is at least the level that UK sites need to aim for.

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, website design, stop spam and more!