Re: Template for Accessible Web Page

On 24 Mar 2008, at 17:34, Haileselassie, Antonio O.
(HQ-LM020) 
[InDyne, Inc] wrote:
> Here’s a suggestion:
>
> http://www.adobe.com/resources/accessibility/d
w8/dw_templates.html

I downloaded the first set of templates offered form this
page, and  
looked through the index.html file. I only gave it a cursory
 
examination, but a list of problems that I compiled in about
five  
minutes follows. I wouldn't call this template
"accessible", far from  
it, it is one of the more inaccessible pages I've seen for a
while.

* The lynx test:

    Noble,  
Pennsylvania                                                
            
                                                            
            
        Town of Noble,  
Pennsylvania                                                
            
                                                            
            
        * ABOUT
* [pipe.gif]
* MAYOR
* [pipe.gif]
* COUNCIL
* [pipe.gif]
* DEPARTMENTS
* [pipe.gif]
* EDUCATION
* [pipe.gif]
* HISTORY
* [pipe.gif]
*  
CALENDAR                                                    
            
                                                            
            
                         Quicklinks  
[Select....................................>] [BUTTON]

That's a big failure.

* XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer

* Transitional (when the differences between Transitional
and Strict  
are tiny other that the addition of things which violate
WCAG)

* No XML prolog (required if not UTF-8) but a claim that it
is  
ISO-8859-1

* Navigation implemented as a select element ... and
dependant on  
JavaScript

* JavaScript commented out. This was encouraged in HTML 4.x
to  
protect pre-HTML 3.2. In XML, however, it is an actual
comment. This  
causes the document to depend on being served as text/html
rather  
then application/xhtml+xml (which the specification says it
SHOULD be  
served as).

* Lack of label elements

* Invalid

* ASCII art used to separate list items ... no li elements
in  
evidence on some lists.

* ALL CAPS used instead of CSS. IIRC, this causes some
screen readers  
to spell the word out as an abbreviation.



-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Hmmm... that's interesting. I am not seeing the significant
accessibility concerns you are finding and am surprised that
this would
be "one of the more inaccessible pages" you've
seen in a while since
there are simply so many inaccessible sites out there. 

Which sections did you find to be JavaScript dependant?
Also, the form
elements I have come across that would require label tags
have them.
There is the poll which could use a label tag, but employs
the input's
"value" attribute instead. 

Now, I have found that the calendar data table lacks a valid
summary and
does not employ the use of the "scope" or
"id" and "headers" attributes,
but, I fail to see where access is not possible. 

I am certainly not defending the accessibility or
inaccessibility of the
basic templates at this site, but perhaps I a missing
something. I am
always open to new and valuable information. Thanks for
pointing this
out. 

Also, do you have alternate suggestions for more accessible
templates?

Antonio O. HaileSelassie


-----Original Message-----
From: David Dorward [mailto:daviddorward.me.uk] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:04 PM
To: w3c-wai-igw3.org
Cc: M. Urban; Haileselassie, Antonio O. (HQ-LM020)[InDyne,
Inc]
Subject: Re: Template for Accessible Web Page


On 24 Mar 2008, at 17:34, Haileselassie, Antonio O.
(HQ-LM020) 
[InDyne, Inc] wrote:
> Here's a suggestion:
>
> http://www.adobe.com/resources/accessibility/d
w8/dw_templates.html

I downloaded the first set of templates offered form this
page, and  
looked through the index.html file. I only gave it a cursory
 
examination, but a list of problems that I compiled in about
five  
minutes follows. I wouldn't call this template
"accessible", far from  
it, it is one of the more inaccessible pages I've seen for a
while.

* The lynx test:

    Noble,  
Pennsylvania

 

        Town of Noble,  
Pennsylvania

 

        * ABOUT
* [pipe.gif]
* MAYOR
* [pipe.gif]
* COUNCIL
* [pipe.gif]
* DEPARTMENTS
* [pipe.gif]
* EDUCATION
* [pipe.gif]
* HISTORY
* [pipe.gif]
*  
CALENDAR

 

                         Quicklinks  
[Select....................................>] [BUTTON]

That's a big failure.

* XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer

* Transitional (when the differences between Transitional
and Strict  
are tiny other that the addition of things which violate
WCAG)

* No XML prolog (required if not UTF-8) but a claim that it
is  
ISO-8859-1

* Navigation implemented as a select element ... and
dependant on  
JavaScript

* JavaScript commented out. This was encouraged in HTML 4.x
to  
protect pre-HTML 3.2. In XML, however, it is an actual
comment. This  
causes the document to depend on being served as text/html
rather  
then application/xhtml+xml (which the specification says it
SHOULD be  
served as).

* Lack of label elements

* Invalid

* ASCII art used to separate list items ... no li elements
in  
evidence on some lists.

* ALL CAPS used instead of CSS. IIRC, this causes some
screen readers  
to spell the word out as an abbreviation.



-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Hi David,

You've outlined a number of issues, some of which I can
agree with. One of
them is a critical flaw. I don't think the site in question
is exemplary of
modern accessible design practices, and for that reason I've
asked that it
be updated or removed from the site.

However, I can't help but notice that your concerns are
mostly about
validation, and that your testing tool is the text browser
Lynx, and not any
real-world assistive technology. There's more to it than
semantics and
validation, and the templates that I've tested, with the
exceptions noted
below, work fine with assistive technology.

On 3/24/08 11:03 AM, "David Dorward" <daviddorward.me.uk> wrote:
> * XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer

[MM] Not an accessibility issue.

> * Transitional (when the differences between
Transitional and Strict
> are tiny other that the addition of things which
violate WCAG)

[MM] This also has nothing to do with accessibility.

> * No XML prolog (required if not UTF-8) but a claim
that it is
> ISO-8859-1

[MM] This is required for standards mode in IE 6.

> * Navigation implemented as a select element ... and
dependant on
> JavaScript

[MM] Yes, this is an issue, and I will see that it is
resolved.

> * JavaScript commented out. This was encouraged in HTML
4.x to
> protect pre-HTML 3.2. In XML, however, it is an actual
comment. This
> causes the document to depend on being served as
text/html rather
> then application/xhtml+xml (which the specification
says it SHOULD be
> served as).

[MM] Not an issue since, as you mentioned, it doesn't have
the XML prolog,
and is XHTML Transitional.

> * Lack of label elements

[MM] Yes, this is also an issue.

> * Invalid

[MM] Yes, there are some bullets missing alt text, and that
shouldn't be,
though in reality it doesn't affect the overall
accessibility. But do
superfluous attributes here and there really make a document
inaccessible?
Be careful of your answer:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdo
rward.me.uk%2F

> * ASCII art used to separate list items ... no li
elements in
> evidence on some lists.

[MM] Now you're really overreaching. A pipe is not
"ASCII art". As most of
us know by now, printable characters between adjacent links
were specified
in WCAG 1 checkpoint 10.5.

> * ALL CAPS used instead of CSS. IIRC, this causes some
screen readers
> to spell the word out as an abbreviation.

[MM] Yes, also an issue, but mostly an inconvenience. And in
JAWS 8, at
least, it does read correctly.

-
m

Matt,

>I don't think the site in question is exemplary of
>modern accessible design practices, and for that reason
I've asked that
it
>be updated or removed from the site.

That's good to hear! I was going to take a detailed look at
the
templates again. I look forward to (hopefully) the update of
that
particular template. I think they are very useful as guides
and starters
to help ensure at least some minimum level of accessibility
for those
that may not be adept or knowledgeable with it and there
aren't many
that provide templates like these.

David,

>Tell that to people with motor control related
handicaps.

I agree. There are definitely preferred methods. But, the
other methods
don't necessarily prevent access. And, you are of course
correct with
the current WCAG 1.0 guideline on scripts, but I don't
necessarily agree
with the antiquated guideline. It's too limiting when access
can still
often be accomplished using scripting properly. 

And, thanks for noting those issues with that particular
site. I'm sure
Marguerite appreciates it as well. 

Antonio O. HaileSelassie

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Morgan-May [mailto:mattmayadobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:15 PM
To: David Dorward; w3c-wai-igw3.org
Cc: M. Urban; Haileselassie, Antonio O. (HQ-LM020)[InDyne,
Inc]
Subject: Re: Template for Accessible Web Page

Hi David,

You've outlined a number of issues, some of which I can
agree with. One
of
them is a critical flaw. I don't think the site in question
is exemplary
of
modern accessible design practices, and for that reason I've
asked that
it
be updated or removed from the site.

However, I can't help but notice that your concerns are
mostly about
validation, and that your testing tool is the text browser
Lynx, and not
any
real-world assistive technology. There's more to it than
semantics and
validation, and the templates that I've tested, with the
exceptions
noted
below, work fine with assistive technology.

On 3/24/08 11:03 AM, "David Dorward" <daviddorward.me.uk> wrote:
> * XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer

[MM] Not an accessibility issue.

> * Transitional (when the differences between
Transitional and Strict
> are tiny other that the addition of things which
violate WCAG)

[MM] This also has nothing to do with accessibility.

> * No XML prolog (required if not UTF-8) but a claim
that it is
> ISO-8859-1

[MM] This is required for standards mode in IE 6.

> * Navigation implemented as a select element ... and
dependant on
> JavaScript

[MM] Yes, this is an issue, and I will see that it is
resolved.

> * JavaScript commented out. This was encouraged in HTML
4.x to
> protect pre-HTML 3.2. In XML, however, it is an actual
comment. This
> causes the document to depend on being served as
text/html rather
> then application/xhtml+xml (which the specification
says it SHOULD be
> served as).

[MM] Not an issue since, as you mentioned, it doesn't have
the XML
prolog,
and is XHTML Transitional.

> * Lack of label elements

[MM] Yes, this is also an issue.

> * Invalid

[MM] Yes, there are some bullets missing alt text, and that
shouldn't
be,
though in reality it doesn't affect the overall
accessibility. But do
superfluous attributes here and there really make a
document
inaccessible?
Be careful of your answer:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdo
rward.me.uk%2F

> * ASCII art used to separate list items ... no li
elements in
> evidence on some lists.

[MM] Now you're really overreaching. A pipe is not
"ASCII art". As most
of
us know by now, printable characters between adjacent links
were
specified
in WCAG 1 checkpoint 10.5.

> * ALL CAPS used instead of CSS. IIRC, this causes some
screen readers
> to spell the word out as an abbreviation.

[MM] Yes, also an issue, but mostly an inconvenience. And in
JAWS 8, at
least, it does read correctly.

-
m