Accessibility
Liz
I see that the US and the UK are passing/have passed laws about website
accessibility.
I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website. On my
browsers here the alt text shows up in the space where the picture is going
to appear - I thought it would be nice to put something different in the alt
text that people could read while waiting for the pic to download! Much
later, I discovered that IE doesn't work that way, so when I re-scanned the
pix and re-tagged the pages, my alt-text became brief and to the point!)
I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
artwork. Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
his artwork properly in any case.
My point is that if a web-site contains train timetables, for instance, it
is very important that it should read perfectly on Lynx, a text-to-speech
device, a PDA etc, but it is it so important that a website where 'the image
is the message' is universally accessible?
I can imagine some people could take huge delight in taking out litigation
against non-compliant sites - probably spending all their spare time hunting
for non-compliant sites to sue; but deaf people can't access radio (for
example) and blind people can't see photographs.
Does that mean that there shouldn't be music or non-tactile art?
Liz
--
Virtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk
Safaris; India; Seychelles; image-manipulation
New Mar 03: India trip expanded; Kenya additions.
Isofarro
> I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
> For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in
> my personal 'photos from safari'
Tell me a little about these photos - what kind of safari were you on? Which
countries did you visit; Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa?
> but deaf people can't access radio
> (for example) and blind people can't see photographs.
And both can use the web.
> Does that mean that there shouldn't be music or non-tactile art?
Nope.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Jerry.
"Liz" <l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote in message
news:713d94e64b...@v-liz.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
> semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
> artwork. Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains
that
> the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I
accept
> this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able
to see
> his artwork properly in any case.
>
Just a thought - what about someone (who is blind or has vision
problems), working for someone who is interested in your husband's
semi-commercial site, who has been asked by their employer to search
the web and comes across your husband's site ?
--
Jerry...
Location: West Sussex. United Kingdom.
Please reply to group, sorry, but ALL mail to this address is now
deleted at source.
BH
In message <713d94e64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk>
writes
>I've been reading various posts here about accessibility.
>I see that the US and the UK are passing/have passed laws about website
>accessibility.
>
>I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
>For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
>personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
I have 2 blind friend who go on safari in South Africa and could
possibly be interested in your site However, your site is not a
commercial site so I believe is exempt
>
>I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
>semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
>artwork.
>Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
>the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
>this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
>his artwork properly in any case.
They may wish to buy some for a gift so a long description would be
useful then there are degrees of Blindness many Blind computer users
have some good useful site like myself however, we need the screen
reader as a backup as words tend to blend after a wile, well the do in
my case. I am reregistered blind and my wife is registered blind I can
walk down the street with out an aid
but my wife uses a dog, same with the computers she totally relies on
screen reader and at work her Braille display as well. I's not our
blindness that's a problem we have had it all our lives the problem is
folk with full site who put obstacles in our way.
>
>My point is that if a web-site contains train timetables, for instance, it
>is very important that it should read perfectly on Lynx, a text-to-speech
>device, a PDA etc, but it is it so important that a website where 'the image
>is the message' is universally accessible?
That all depends on what the image is conveying - if say it is an image
of the latest Goodmans DAB Radio "see photo for details" and that is
all you have, you will get complaints.
>
>I can imagine some people could take huge delight in taking out litigation
>against non-compliant sites
Until now no. The RINB legal department which most VI seek advice form
contact the site first, so far all have then complied sort of but they
are only going after the big sites, but one they will run out and will
come after the little ones.......
> - probably spending all their spare time hunting
>for non-compliant sites to sue;
Well the days of us siting in a corner rocking back and forward doing
nothing are coming to an end - back in the early 90s when we used DOS
to access the net all was accessible to blind users - when the www took
off at first this also was very accessible, but over time this has been
degraded - more blind users are joining the net and are getting more
frustrated so when the first private individual sues a company and
wins some money. Many will as you put it will "probably spending all
their spare time hunting for non-compliant sites to sue;"
> but deaf people can't access radio (for
>example) and blind people can't see photographs.
>Does that mean that there shouldn't be music or non-tactile art?
>
>
The words are "reasonable adjustments" example:
It could be deemed unreasonable for the Times News Paper to have a
Braille version cost and limited dally Braille readership. However, it
is not unreasonable to make the online version accessible as the costs
are very little and it benefits all VI readers not just Braille readers.
Now where it gets interesting is, is it unreasonable for Pizza Hut to
provide Braille version of their menu ! (Well they do because some one
started proceedings but it never got to court so I was told ) However,
is it unreasonable for the small cafe in a back street to provide the
same. Some would say no because Pizza Hut do. Now if it had gone to
court they would have to but at the moment it is a grey area just like
websites.
It's all down to interpretation of the person with the wig on their head
and if that don't work in your favour, then there are the 7 men in
Brussels who love to over rule UK law and the ground of human rights.
Take care
Barrie,
--
Tower-Forte Website Services
http://www.tower-forte.co.uk/
Tel:01254-774599 Fax:01254-773158 Email: in...@tower-forte.co.uk
Andy Mabbett
>applicable.
AIUI, the laws apply to companies and corporations, selling products or
services or carrying out statutory duties; not to personal and hobby
sites.
>For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested
>in my personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
>On my browsers here the alt text shows up in the space where the
>picture is going to appear - I thought it would be nice to put
>something different in the alt text that people could read while
>waiting for the pic to download! Much later, I discovered that IE
>doesn't work that way, so when I re-scanned the pix and re-tagged the
>pages, my alt-text became brief and to the point!)
"Alt" text isn't just for blind people; it's for people who have images
turned off because, for example, they're on slow connections; for people
using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for search
engines.
>I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
>semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
>artwork.
So, an art historian who has become blind suddenly lose all interest in
art? Blind people never buy art for other people?
> Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that the
>text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
>this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to
>see his artwork properly in any case.
That warning applies as much to fully sighted people as anyone else.
>My point is that if a web-site contains train timetables, for instance,
>it is very important that it should read perfectly on Lynx, a text-to-
>speech device, a PDA etc, but it is it so important that a website
>where 'the image is the message' is universally accessible?
Yes.
more to the point, what advantage is there, for you or other website
creators, in making a site, deliberately, inaccessible?
>I can imagine some people could take huge delight in taking out
>litigation against non-compliant sites - probably spending all their
>spare time hunting for non-compliant sites to sue;
Excellent.
>but deaf people can't access radio (for example) and blind people can't
>see photographs.
Not all deaf people have no hearing; not a blind people have no sight.
--
Andy Mabbett Not in my name: <http://www.stopwar.org.uk/>
Geneva Convention:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,921410,00.html>
jake
>I see that the US and the UK are passing/have passed laws about website
>accessibility.
>
>I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
To anyone offering a 'service' to the public.
>For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
>personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
Blind people go on holiday. I'm sure they would be interested,
especially as you already have plenty of text to go with your photos.
All the site needs is some descriptions of the photographs -- what do
they show, what's the significance, etc.
Being 'visually disabled' covers a number of impairments -- not just
complete loss of sight. Accessibility is also not just about blindness,
but also covers areas such as deafness, mobility, dyslexia, etc.
>On my
>browsers here the alt text shows up in the space where the picture is going
>to appear - I thought it would be nice to put something different in the alt
>text that people could read while waiting for the pic to download! Much
>later, I discovered that IE doesn't work that way, so when I re-scanned the
>pix and re-tagged the pages, my alt-text became brief and to the point!)
>
The ALT=" attribute is a simple replacement for the graphic. If the
graphic contains text, then the ALT contains the same text. If the
graphic contains no text, but is still 'significant', then the ALT
contains a short description. If the graphic is just decoration, then
ALT="" is sufficient.
>I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
>semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
>artwork.
If he's offering a service to the public -- then the site should conform
to the norms of accessibility. It shouldn't be that difficult. Why not
post the URL and let us have a look?
>Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
>the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
>this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
>his artwork properly in any case.
People with some forms of 'colour-blindness' will have trouble reading
text if the text colour and the background colour are mis-matched.
They're able to see the artwork OK -- but differently.
>
>My point is that if a web-site contains train timetables, for instance, it
>is very important that it should read perfectly on Lynx, a text-to-speech
>device, a PDA etc, but it is it so important that a website where 'the image
>is the message' is universally accessible?
Remember. Accessibility is not just about blindness.
>
>I can imagine some people could take huge delight in taking out litigation
>against non-compliant sites - probably spending all their spare time hunting
>for non-compliant sites to sue;
I doubt it :-)
>but deaf people can't access radio (for
>example) and blind people can't see photographs.
Stop thinking 'accessibility problems' = people without sight.
Recently, on alt.html.critique, one site designer asked for comment.
Among the accessibility problems that was commented on was the fact that
it contained a short 'welcoming' video.
No problems for the visually impaired.
But as he hadn't provided either:
(a) captioning on the video, or
(b) a transcript
it was inaccessible to deaf people.
>Does that mean that there shouldn't be music or non-tactile art?
No.
>
>Liz
>
> --
>Virtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk
>Safaris; India; Seychelles; image-manipulation
>New Mar 03: India trip expanded; Kenya additions.
BTW. Nice Web site ............ like the photography.
--
Jake
Jerry.
"Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:R9hBQOL+...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
<snip>
>
> "Alt" text isn't just for blind people; it's for people who have
images
> turned off because, for example, they're on slow connections; for
people
> using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for
search
> engines.
>
"perhaps because they/'re driving" Err !!! :~(
I can see the next road safety campaign.........
Liz
Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> "Alt" text isn't just for blind people; it's for people who have images
> turned off because, for example, they're on slow connections; for people
> using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for search
> engines.
Yes, I know, but some sites are pretty pointless without the images.
Maybe I should write at the beginning of every page "If you are driving, get
off my page" (I don't want to be sued for causing a driving accident)
> >I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
> >semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
> >artwork.
> So, an art historian who has become blind suddenly lose all interest in
> art? Blind people never buy art for other people?
I can't say: but I wouldn't buy art for anyone else. It's all so personal.
I prefer to choose my own and think others would feel the same. There's
always the awkward problem of how to get rid of the unwanted gifts.
The only exception I'd make was if I knew someone was an avid collector of a
particular range.
> > Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that the
> >text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
> >this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to
> >see his artwork properly in any case.
> That warning applies as much to fully sighted people as anyone else.
In this case, there probably wouldn't be a problem for fully or even partly
sighted people.
I myself have worn glasses since I was seven, and was the youngest person my
specialist has prescribed bifocals for. I *seem* not to see much difference
between 32000 colours on screen and 16M. But I can see a very clear
difference between the background and the text, as can my husband whose
eyesight is worse than mine (and who chose the colours).
> more to the point, what advantage is there, for you or other website
> creators, in making a site, deliberately, inaccessible?
None at all, but I certainly don't.
I'm just wondering at which point I need to compromise what my husband wants
with what Bobby dictates. I looked at a few of my own and his pages in the
lynx-emulator site someone mentioned in another thread, for which info I'm
grateful. I'd never want to look at any site like that.
All the *info* was there, but it didn't look good.
Liz
Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
> Liz wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
> > For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in
> > my personal 'photos from safari'
>
> Tell me a little about these photos - what kind of safari were you on?
Photo safari, but my husband was drawing, IYSWIM.
> Which countries did you visit; Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa?
Kenya most often, Tanzania once, plus another trip to Zanzibar at the
beginning of a Kenya safari. Botwana is too expensive for us, KwaZulu Natal
is a possibility - one day, and I quite fancy Namibia, though D. doesn't.
> > but deaf people can't access radio
> > (for example) and blind people can't see photographs.
> And both can use the web.
Yes, but would a (totally) blind person view a mainly photo site, or a
(totally) deaf person visit a music site.
Liz
BH <to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <713d94e64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk>
> writes
> >I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally applicable.
> >For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
> >personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
>
> I have 2 blind friend who go on safari in South Africa and could
> possibly be interested in your site However, your site is not a
> commercial site so I believe is exempt
If they'd like to have a shuftie and email me any serious problems, I'll see
what I can reasonably do, but my site is sort of 'on hold' just now.....
> >I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
> >semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
> >artwork.
>
> >Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
> >the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
> >this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
> >his artwork properly in any case.
>
> They may wish to buy some for a gift so a long description would be
> useful
But that contradicts all the usability advice to keep text on a site very brief!
I've had major issues with D already about cutting his text.
> >
> >My point is that if a web-site contains train timetables, for instance, it
> >is very important that it should read perfectly on Lynx, a text-to-speech
> >device, a PDA etc, but it is it so important that a website where 'the image
> >is the message' is universally accessible?
>
> That all depends on what the image is conveying - if say it is an image
> of the latest Goodmans DAB Radio "see photo for details" and that is
> all you have, you will get complaints.
Hmmm - well I suppose I'd want to know dimensions.
> >I can imagine some people could take huge delight in taking out litigation
> >against non-compliant sites
> Until now no. The RINB legal department which most VI seek advice form
> contact the site first, so far all have then complied sort of but they
> are only going after the big sites, but one they will run out and will
> come after the little ones.......
> > - probably spending all their spare time hunting
> >for non-compliant sites to sue;
>
> Well the days of us siting in a corner rocking back and forward doing
> nothing are coming to an end -
I actually wasn't thinking of blind people taking out the litigation.
I was thinking about people in general who would just do it for the hell of it.
Like some of the people in my vague acquaintance who wish they could have an
accident serious enough that they can get compensation. (No, they're *not*
my friends)
>
> The words are "reasonable adjustments" example:
>
> It could be deemed unreasonable for the Times News Paper to have a
> Braille version cost and limited dally Braille readership. However, it
> is not unreasonable to make the online version accessible as the costs
> are very little and it benefits all VI readers not just Braille readers.
But one interesting point is this.
As well as the talk on accessibility in this group, I also read criticisms
of people for using old-fashioned HTML instead of CSS. Well, none of the
browsers for this platform fully supports CSS - so should I complain to
those who write CSS sites? I think not! In fact, lots of big, commercial
companies sites completely crash, or won't show at all, on these browsers,
but I now have come to think that you can't stop progress.
Mind you, there's 'progress' which isn't really progress.
A company I use a lot is Colab.
Until recently I had no problems with their site.
Last week I wanted to get some info.
None of the site would read here.
I really wanted the info, so I went and fired up the pc.
Site now read fine, but the usability was a nightmare, and after over 15mins
I couldn't find the info I needed. (I don't think it was actually there, but
will email them to confirm). In the 'old' version, I could get this info one
click in from the home page!
> Now where it gets interesting is, is it unreasonable for Pizza Hut to
> provide Braille version of their menu ! (Well they do because some one
> started proceedings but it never got to court so I was told ) However,
> is it unreasonable for the small cafe in a back street to provide the
> same. Some would say no because Pizza Hut do. Now if it had gone to
> court they would have to but at the moment it is a grey area just like
> websites.
Then what about the blind people who can't read Braille?
I'm trying to think about the logisitics of a cafe round getting daily-
updated menus written in Braille. They'd have to get a braille writer, I
suppose, but it could be difficult to proof-read unless they employed a
blind person willing and able to do this daily. Would this be a legitimate
business expense? What about all the cafes/restaurants/bars who write their
daily specials or indeed their whole menu on a board? It would be a big
time/money 'issue' for most establishments, I think. A very difficult issue.
I remember a couple of years back being in the SWDesert of America. There
was a shop I particularly wanted to visit. We drove along there, but the
only free parking spaces were for the disabled. There were about 16 disabled
parking spaces (it was a big parking 'lot'), and only one was being used.
The next nearest parking place was a mile away, down a steepish hill. The
temperature was well over 90F.
I discovered that I didn't *need* anything from that shop, which from their
pov was probably a loss - if they had stuff in stock as nice as I saw in their
advert, I'd probably have bought all my souvenirs/gifts from there. It was
a small shop, but shared with parking lot with other, more pedestrian shops
and was the parking for people setting out on some marked 'hikes'.)
(I didn't make the decision based on the unused disabled spaces, just on the
unwanted mile-long uphill trek in such a high temperature)
Liz
"Jerry." <use...@scarts.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Liz wrote in message news:713d94e64b...@v-liz.co.uk...
> <snip>
> >
> > I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
> > semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
> > artwork. Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains
> > that the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I
> > accept this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able
> > to see his artwork properly in any case.
> Just a thought - what about someone (who is blind or has vision
> problems), working for someone who is interested in your husband's
> semi-commercial site, who has been asked by their employer to search
> the web and comes across your husband's site?
I'd be surprised, because they wouldn't be able to tell their employer
anything more about his work than the search engine would; s/he could
possibly make a list of possible artists working in his genre, but a sighted
person would have to decide on who to check out more fully based on whether
or not what they see sparks their interest. It's extremely difficult to
describe a piece of art very briefly so that the reader can really get an
idea of what it's like.
Someone who can't differentiate between the background and text won't be
able to see the far more subtle shade differences inherant in wood sculpture.
(Actually, the background/text problem Bobby showed up was for a different
section than the environmental sculpture section, but you get the drift)
Alan J. Flavell
> > using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for
> search
> > engines.
> >
>
> "perhaps because they/'re driving" Err !!! :~(
>
> I can see the next road safety campaign.........
Well it beats trying to read a map.
Alan J. Flavell
> The ALT=" attribute is a simple replacement for the graphic. If the
> graphic contains text, then the ALT contains the same text.
Right; but on the other hand, maybe it would be better to provide the
text as text, and propose its visual styling via the stylesheet.
That's working better and better with time, and I'd say the majority
of the images-of-text that I see on web pages would be improved by it.
> If the graphic contains no text, but is still 'significant', then
> the ALT contains a short description.
That could sometimes be appropriate, but - in practice - it seems to
be wrong more often than it's right.
The more thoughtful part of the HTML4 specification says
( http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.8 ):
Several non-textual elements (IMG, AREA, APPLET, and INPUT) let
authors specify alternate text to serve as content when the element
cannot be rendered normally.
Note that key phrase: "to serve as content". NOT "to describe the
content", or anything like that.
Think of the text and the image as alternative representations for
content. Sometimes - but only sometimes - the context is such that a
description of the image may be the appropriate way to "serve as
content". But, in general, I say it's a mistake to take "description"
as one's primary guide, even though it sometimes turns out to be the
right choice in its context.
> If the graphic is just decoration, then ALT="" is sufficient.
That's a definite "maybe". You might need some punctuation, otherwise
a speaking browser could read a succession of ALT texts as if they
were a sentence, and that might not be appropriate. ("Photo of a bull
in the water canoeing" is in my collection...).
But if ALT="" is the right choice, then the WAI guidelines certainly
allow its use - indeed they encourage it, and have an example to show
it in use.
BH
writes
>In message <yDgItNEtl$o+E...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk>
> BH <to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> >I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
>> >semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
>> >artwork.
>>
>> >Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
>> >the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
>> >this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
>> >his artwork properly in any case.
>>
>> They may wish to buy some for a gift so a long description would be
>> useful
>But that contradicts all the usability advice to keep text on a site
>very brief!
>I've had major issues with D already about cutting his text.
You could use a D link this is a link to a text only page which has a
paragraph saying what is in the photo or use the longdesc
<img src="foo.gif" border="0" width="454" height="454" alt=" this is
foo in all his glory " longdesc="foos-glory.html">
However, the longdesc is not yet fully supported by screen readers :-(
{Snip}
>>
>
>> Well the days of us siting in a corner rocking back and forward doing
>> nothing are coming to an end -
>I actually wasn't thinking of blind people taking out the litigation.
>I was thinking about people in general who would just do it for the hell of it.
>Like some of the people in my vague acquaintance who wish they could have an
>accident serious enough that they can get compensation. (No, they're *not*
>my friends)
No they would have to prove that it caused them a problem a bit extreme
to poke your eyes out for a few quid :-)
>
>>
>> The words are "reasonable adjustments" example:
>>
>> It could be deemed unreasonable for the Times News Paper to have a
>> Braille version cost and limited dally Braille readership. However, it
>> is not unreasonable to make the online version accessible as the costs
>> are very little and it benefits all VI readers not just Braille readers.
>
>But one interesting point is this.
>As well as the talk on accessibility in this group, I also read criticisms
>of people for using old-fashioned HTML instead of CSS. Well, none of the
>browsers for this platform fully supports CSS - so should I complain to
>those who write CSS sites? I think not! In fact, lots of big, commercial
>companies sites completely crash, or won't show at all, on these browsers,
>but I now have come to think that you can't stop progress.
I would agreed you must build in some backwards compatibility.
However, _for most_ upgrading to a new browser is not a problem, just
lack of knowledge. There is still a lot out there using IE5.00 which
is 1995 and even some using win 3.11 that comes down the reasonable
adjustments bit
{Snip}
>
>> Now where it gets interesting is, is it unreasonable for Pizza Hut to
>> provide Braille version of their menu ! (Well they do because some one
>> started proceedings but it never got to court so I was told ) However,
>> is it unreasonable for the small cafe in a back street to provide the
>> same. Some would say no because Pizza Hut do. Now if it had gone to
>> court they would have to but at the moment it is a grey area just like
>> websites.
>Then what about the blind people who can't read Braille?
Tapes take a large town like Blackburn their blind club has over 3,000
members. I know that may be 30 - 60 would read Braille at the most,
that's because most have lost their site in later years, yet take the
Association of Blind Piano Tuners 66% of their members read Braille.
Take Wales how many can read Welsh but look at all the money spent on
producing it You judge your society by the way you treat your
minority's is how most look at it.
>I'm trying to think about the logisitics of a cafe round getting daily-
>updated menus written in Braille. They'd have to get a braille writer, I
>suppose, but it could be difficult to proof-read unless they employed a
>blind person willing and able to do this daily.
There is a big growth industry I know of 3 folk who have give up their
day jobs and set up Braille writing service LEAs pay big money.
> Would this be a legitimate
>business expense?
Yes
> What about all the cafes/restaurants/bars who write their
>daily specials or indeed their whole menu on a board? It would be a big
>time/money 'issue' for most establishments, I think. A very difficult issue.
Again all comes under the reasonable adjustments
>
>I remember a couple of years back being in the SWDesert of America. There
>was a shop I particularly wanted to visit. We drove along there, but the
>only free parking spaces were for the disabled. There were about 16 disabled
>parking spaces (it was a big parking 'lot'), and only one was being used.
>The next nearest parking place was a mile away, down a steepish hill. The
>temperature was well over 90F.
The difference in the US is you would have been fined even if it had
been on a private car park, not so in the UK but we don't get 90F that
often you are more likely to get wet but there is no law to stop you
parking in a disabled bay in say in Sainsburys unless they have a
clamping policy if you don't have a blue badge.
Barrie,
--
Barrie Heaton
jake
J. Flavell <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, jake wrote:
>
>> The ALT=" attribute is a simple replacement for the graphic. If the
>> graphic contains text, then the ALT contains the same text.
>
>Right; but on the other hand, maybe it would be better to provide the
>text as text, and propose its visual styling via the stylesheet.
>That's working better and better with time, and I'd say the majority
>of the images-of-text that I see on web pages would be improved by it.
A big part of the visual styling of a site is the appropriate use of
text and font style. Whether we want to use shadowing, graduation, or
just plain exotic fonts then at present a graphic is the only way to go.
You can, of, course embed fonts -- but different browser technologies
use different embedding technologies.
>
>> If the graphic contains no text, but is still 'significant', then
>> the ALT contains a short description.
>
>That could sometimes be appropriate, but - in practice - it seems to
>be wrong more often than it's right.
Depends on who's doing it :-)
>
>The more thoughtful part of the HTML4 specification says
> ( http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.8 ):
>
> Several non-textual elements (IMG, AREA, APPLET, and INPUT) let
> authors specify alternate text to serve as content when the element
> cannot be rendered normally.
>
>Note that key phrase: "to serve as content". NOT "to describe the
>content", or anything like that.
>
>Think of the text and the image as alternative representations for
>content. Sometimes - but only sometimes - the context is such that a
>description of the image may be the appropriate way to "serve as
>content". But, in general, I say it's a mistake to take "description"
>as one's primary guide, even though it sometimes turns out to be the
>right choice in its context.
>
>> If the graphic is just decoration, then ALT="" is sufficient.
>
>That's a definite "maybe".
No, it's a definite.
>You might need some punctuation, otherwise
>a speaking browser could read a succession of ALT texts as if they
>were a sentence, and that might not be appropriate. ("Photo of a bull
>in the water canoeing" is in my collection...).
A text-to-speech browser will speak whatever is in there, although you
can usually set your reader to ignore ALTs with null content.
I'm a little unclear what you're saying here. Judicious use of
punctuation is the norm if you're checking your page's output though
text2speech software.
>
>But if ALT="" is the right choice, then the WAI guidelines certainly
>allow its use - indeed they encourage it, and have an example to show
>it in use.
>
Uhhh ........ yes.
--
Jake
William Tasso
> ...
> I remember a couple of years back being in the SWDesert of America.
> There was a shop I particularly wanted to visit. We drove along
> there, but the only free parking spaces were for the disabled. There
> were about 16 disabled parking spaces (it was a big parking 'lot'),
> and only one was being used. The next nearest parking place was a
> mile away, down a steepish hill. The temperature was well over 90F.
> I discovered that I didn't *need* anything from that shop, which from
> their pov was probably a loss - if they had stuff in stock as nice as
> I saw in their advert, I'd probably have bought all my
> souvenirs/gifts from there. It was a small shop, but shared with
> parking lot with other, more pedestrian shops and was the parking for
> people setting out on some marked 'hikes'.) (I didn't make the
> decision based on the unused disabled spaces, just on the unwanted
> mile-long uphill trek in such a high temperature)
>
Just as likely to be staff as anyone else. Retail staff should be
immediately dismissed if found to be parking in a public bay within 200
yards of their shop.
--
William Tasso - http://www.WilliamTasso.com
Alan J. Flavell
> But one interesting point is this. As well as the talk on
> accessibility in this group, I also read criticisms of people for
> using old-fashioned HTML instead of CSS.
Actually, the use there of the term "old fashioned" is misleading.
Early discussions on HTML show that it was intended to mark-up the
structure of the content and for there to be a stylesheet which could
adapt the presentation to the circumstances. One of the very early
browsers (Viola) used a form of stylesheet for its presentation.
"Mosaic Communications Corp"/Netscape's unwanted digression into
presentational-HTML (quasi visual DTP, call it what you will), which
was then promptly aped by the newcomer on the block (in spite of the
newcomer's existing expertise in stylesheets in their word processors)
just wasted a couple of years in web development, but we're broadly
back heading in the originally-intended direction now (of course, the
details are very different after 10 years or so: no suprises in that).
> Well, none of the browsers for this platform fully supports CSS
That's always been part of the plan. As long as you make your content
accessible, and your CSS optional, and browsers follow the mandate of
ignoring any CSS that they don't properly understand, it wouldn't
matter.
> - so should I complain to
> those who write CSS sites? I think not! In fact, lots of big, commercial
> companies sites completely crash, or won't show at all, on these browsers,
Well, sadly the reality is that actual browsers are making a stab at
implementing stuff that isn't properly working yet. Hence the need
for a certain level of trickery to hide CSS from defective browsers.
But by and large, the plan is workable. Of course, the author _does_
need to understand the difference between substantive content marked
up in HTML, and optional presentation proposal(s) in CSS, and make
their design choices accordingly.
The users of older or limited-function browsers just need to
understand that they'll be missing some of the nicer parts of the
cosmetics. But they still get access to the content, and that's the
key.
Liz
jake <ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
> >semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
> >artwork.
>
> If he's offering a service to the public -- then the site should conform
> to the norms of accessibility. It shouldn't be that difficult. Why not
> post the URL and let us have a look?
Hahaha
Because you lot know what you're doing!
However, if you promise not to shred me to bits, here it is:
http://www.spectrus.net.
I *know* two problems already exist:
I shouldn't really have a 'still to come' bit on the home page (but D
insisted!)
I'll need to make the main images for the framed bits smaller. I thought
they were small enough for 800x600 monitors, and in Webster and Fresco they
are, but not on IE, which has bigger 'furniture' defaults.
For this reason, I've just bought HomeSite, so that I can work on the PC,
but it seems to be a lot more complicated than HTMLEdit, which I'm using
ATM, so I'll have to get through the learning curve, as well as working out
how to ftp from the pc!
> >Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
> >the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
> >this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
> >his artwork properly in any case.
> People with some forms of 'colour-blindness' will have trouble reading
> text if the text colour and the background colour are mis-matched.
I've seen various usability sites recommending that web authors shouldn't
change the default blue link and purple vlink colours, but I'm pretty
certain at least one of my colour blind colleagues can't see the difference
between them.
> Recently, on alt.html.critique, one site designer asked for comment.
> Among the accessibility problems that was commented on was the fact that
> it contained a short 'welcoming' video.
> No problems for the visually impaired.
> But as he hadn't provided either:
> (a) captioning on the video, or
> (b) a transcript
> it was inaccessible to deaf people.
It wouldn't be viewable on vanilla !Webster or !Fresco!
> BTW. Nice Web site ............ like the photography.
Tx
I've still got quite a lot of the safari pix to re-scan.
I did them on a flatbed, but now have a pukka film scanner :-))) - but it's
actually locating the original slides.....
I first did everything in a wysiwyg program. A big mistake.
I got a lot of flak from my fellow RISC OS users about it, despite the fact
that it read perfectly in !Fresco, which was ATT the only viable RISC OS
browser. Apparently they didn't like the 'inflated taggging'. Interestingly,
although it wasn't optimised for IE, not one of the many IE users who
emailed me ever complained about it (at the beginning I didn't realise there
was a browser issue!)
Anyway, the current image-manipulation section won't be retagged, as it's
only really relevant to !Photodesk users, who like me are mostly migrating to
Photoshop (!PDesk isn't being developed). One day I'll put up some of my
Photoshop/PSP stuff and will tag that properly.
Isofarro
> In message <u6n08b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>
> Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
>> Liz wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder whether issues/laws of accessibility are universally
>> > applicable. For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely
>> > interested in my personal 'photos from safari'
>>
>> Tell me a little about these photos - what kind of safari were you on?
> Photo safari, but my husband was drawing, IYSWIM.
Drawing? Sounds excellent. what of? Which wildlife or scenic views did you
get photos and drawings of? Any funny or memorable pictures, or out of the
ordinary?
I like the sound of your picture collection - although I haven't seen them.
>> Which countries did you visit; Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa?
> Kenya most often, Tanzania once,
I'd like to spend some time there, especially around the Sereyengeti and the
Kilamanjaro (sp?)
> KwaZulu Natal is a possibility - one day, and I quite fancy Namibia,
> though D. doesn't.
I think you are drawing a good enough picture just in text, sounds like
you'll have no problems putting some descriptive alt text and title text
for your photos. :-)
>> > but deaf people can't access radio
>> > (for example) and blind people can't see photographs.
>> And both can use the web.
> Yes, but would a (totally) blind person view a mainly photo site, or a
> (totally) deaf person visit a music site.
Both would be able to access the descriptions you've given above, and make a
decision from that whether to recommend your site to family and friends.
Without something accessible, the decision is always pre-made: no way. But
with something accessible, you give them the choice.
Sometimes the text can complement, even supplement the photos and drawings.
Where this is reasonable - like captions of travelling pictures, then its a
good idea. Remember that accessible media doesn't just benefit the
completely blind or completely deaf - it also benefits your typical
visitor. Its great seeing picture of wildlife and exotic locations, but
even better when there's some text about where, when and why the picture
was taken.
Have you noticed that many people's real photo collection normally has a few
jotted notes on the back, describing time and place? Its natural and common
for us to provide text/hand-written supplements to pictures. Sometimes
theres a good story behind that a picture cannot fully tell.
Even when someone is showing you their photo album, do they do it in
complete silence, or do they share a funny or beautiful moment? Wouldn't
you say there's more depth to pictures and drawings than the drawings
themselves?
Isofarro
> In message <yDgItNEtl$o+E...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk>
> BH <to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> They may wish to buy some for a gift so a long description would be
>> useful
> But that contradicts all the usability advice to keep text on a site very
> brief! I've had major issues with D already about cutting his text.
If the text is already written - keep it! As BH suggests, this is excellent
content for D-link or longdesc pages.
> I was thinking about people in general who would just do it for the hell
> of it. Like some of the people in my vague acquaintance who wish they
> could have an accident serious enough that they can get compensation. (No,
> they're *not* my friends)
There's always people like that out there, but please don't think
accessibility is just for them. Even though I'm currently fully sighted,
I'd be interested in the photos plus a bit of story/diary/journal behind
the pictures - what you liked, what you'd recommend. I don't need to be
blind or partially sighted to enjoy a good story.
> As well as the talk on accessibility in this group, I also read criticisms
> of people for using old-fashioned HTML instead of CSS. Well, none of the
> browsers for this platform fully supports CSS
Not a single browser fully supports HTML either. :-)
> - so should I complain to
> those who write CSS sites?
If they are dependant on the CSS for accessibility - yes. CSS is an optional
presentation layer on top of presentation-independant HTML. By allowing the
"presentation" to be ignored, it allows the browser, whether visual, aural
or otherwise to use the accessible content to the benefit of the user.
> What about all the cafes/restaurants/bars who write
> their daily specials or indeed their whole menu on a board? It would be a
> big time/money 'issue' for most establishments, I think. A very difficult
> issue.
I would apply a reasonable man test here. Would a reasonable man expect a
daily changing menu to be available in Braille form - I would say no. Would
a reasonable man expect a waiter to read/recite the daily menu (or portions
of it) for him - I would say, without having providing a braille menu, yes.
Considering how many waiters I encounter that recite daily specials (even
make recommendations) while I'm reading the menu, I'd consider
reciting/reading the menu to be reasonable in making their restaurant more
accessible.
Now providing both on a website is also prohibitively expensive. But
providing accessible content isn't as expensive as either of these options.
It really takes an effort to make an online menu inaccessible.
> I remember a couple of years back being in the SWDesert of America. There
> was a shop I particularly wanted to visit. We drove along there, but the
> only free parking spaces were for the disabled. There were about 16
> disabled parking spaces (it was a big parking 'lot'), and only one was
> being used.
This is unfortunate, and an real-world example of a trade-off between
accessibility and non-disabled customers. Yes, its not an ideal solution.
But I don't believe this happens on the web. Accessibility on the web
benefits more people than those with disabilities.
Isofarro
>
> "Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:R9hBQOL+...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> <snip>
>>
>> for people
>> using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for
>> search engines.
>
> "perhaps because they/'re driving" Err !!! :~(
>
> I can see the next road safety campaign.........
Do you know of anyone that converses with passengers, or listens to the
radio while driving?
Alan J. Flavell
> >Right; but on the other hand, maybe it would be better to provide the
> >text as text, and propose its visual styling via the stylesheet.
> >That's working better and better with time, and I'd say the majority
> >of the images-of-text that I see on web pages would be improved by it.
>
> A big part of the visual styling of a site is the appropriate use of
> text and font style.
If you're willing to make that "a big part" of your site, then you're
going to have a big disappointment when you look over my shoulder as I
read it on my palmtop. And that's only one out of many diverse
browsing situations that your web pages can expect to encounter.
> Whether we want to use shadowing, graduation, or
> just plain exotic fonts then at present a graphic is the only way to go.
Erm, yeah, and how much of that survives the real WWW out there?
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against a visually attractive web
page - far from it, I welcome it when the browsing situation makes it
feasible. But I'm not going to let other browsing situations suffer
for the sake of pretending that they WWW is DTP WYSIWYG, because I
know that it really isn't.
cheers
Eric Jarvis
> >see photographs.
>
> Not all deaf people have no hearing; not a blind people have no sight.
>
the fact is that some deaf people enjoy music...they
don't hear it in the same way as hearing people do, but
they can experience the sound as vibration
the key to accessibility is NOT making false
assumptions...the easiest way to do that is not to make
assumptions at all
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Jerry.
"BH" <to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c05qAJ7...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk...<snip>
>
> You could use a D link this is a link to a text only page which has
a
> paragraph saying what is in the photo or use the longdesc
> <img src="foo.gif" border="0" width="454" height="454" alt=" this
is
> foo in all his glory " longdesc="foos-glory.html">
>
> However, the longdesc is not yet fully supported by screen readers
:-(
>
Could you not use a normal <a href.... link to another page to give
this information, those who need it have it to hand, those who don't
need it can just ignore the link, in fact how about using the tip in
another thread (by "Jake" in message ref
news:fQLxo0Bj...@gododdin.demon.co.uk) of using a 1 pixel
transparent gif as a link with something like alt="Use this link for
more information on foo" as the alternate description for text
browsers and screen readers ? Or have I grasped the wrong end of the
nettle.....
BH
<use...@scarts.f9.co.uk> writes
>> You could use a D link this is a link to a text only page which has
>a
>> paragraph saying what is in the photo or use the longdesc
>> <img src="foo.gif" border="0" width="454" height="454" alt=" this
>is
>> foo in all his glory " longdesc="foos-glory.html">
>>
>> However, the longdesc is not yet fully supported by screen readers
>:-(
>>
>
>Could you not use a normal <a href.... link to another page to give
>this information, those who need it have it to hand, those who don't
>need it can just ignore the link, in fact how about using the tip in
>another thread (by "Jake" in message ref
>news:fQLxo0Bj...@gododdin.demon.co.uk) of using a 1 pixel
>transparent gif as a link with something like alt="Use this link for
>more information on foo" as the alternate description for text browsers
>and screen readers ? Or have I grasped the wrong end of the
>nettle.....
That is what a "D" link is you centre it under the photo
<a href="foo.html">D</a>
you place all your descriptions on that page D for description. Most VI
users are aware of what D links are used for.
Barrie,
--
Barrie Heaton
Isofarro
> Because you lot know what you're doing!
> However, if you promise not to shred me to bits, here it is:
> http://www.spectrus.net.
Wow - the drawings are stunning, especially the image on the homepage. I
love the way I'm following the intricate looping "gold path" starting from
the bottom and working my way up, and then the bird suddenly "pops-out" and
becomes immediately clear.
Not to belabour the point, but a bit of text explaining the thoughts, ideas
and inspiration behind this picture would add to my understanding (and
appreciation).
> For this reason, I've just bought HomeSite
Hmmm... was that a recommendation? Since there is a free clone called "1st
page 2000" which could have saved you a bit of money. (I used to use
Homesite, but it hinders me more than helps now, so I'm a textpad addict).
> I've seen various usability sites recommending that web authors shouldn't
> change the default blue link and purple vlink colours, but I'm pretty
> certain at least one of my colour blind colleagues can't see the
> difference between them.
Luckily, blue-afflicted colour blindness is one of the rarest of conditions.
Reds would tend to be lighter tending toward beige. IMO your footer wording
on the homepage is sufficiently contrasting from the background colour, so
links of this colour seem to be comfortably readable.
> Interestingly, although it wasn't optimised for IE, not one of the many IE
> users who emailed me ever complained about it
IE (on Windows) tends to be the browser with the biggest and most bloated
error-correction algorithms.
Andy Mabbett
writes
>I'm just wondering at which point I need to compromise what my husband
>wants with what Bobby dictates.
In most cases, you probably don't need to compromise, at all.
Andy Mabbett
writes
>However, if you promise not to shred me to bits, here it is:
>http://www.spectrus.net.
Well, the Capercaillie endears the site to me, straight away ;-)
>I *know* two problems already exist:
>I shouldn't really have a 'still to come' bit on the home page
No, that's OK, it acts as a teaser - sp long as you don't leave it like
that for a year or so...
>I've seen various usability sites recommending that web authors
>shouldn't change the default blue link and purple vlink colours, but
>I'm pretty certain at least one of my colour blind colleagues can't see
>the difference between them.
What he sees is still the "default" setting for him! That said, I've
never seen any problem with changing those colours; so log as there is
consistency throughout the site, and the links are obvious.
You might like to change <b> tags to strong; <i> to <em> and remove any
<font> tags, using CSS to apply the font attributes.
Then get rid of tables used for layout...
Isofarro
> using a 1 pixel
> transparent gif as a link with something like alt="Use this link for
> more information on foo" as the alternate description for text
> browsers and screen readers ? Or have I grasped the wrong end of the
> nettle.....
Well it would prevent unaffected people from using their graphical browsers
to visit the extra information. Is there any particular reason you have to
suggest they won't be interested in it? BH's suggestion of a D-link, or
perhaps linking the image to additional material is better suited - for all
audiences.
Jerry.
"Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u2m18b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
> Jerry. wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in
message
> > news:R9hBQOL+...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> for people
> >> using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for
> >> search engines.
> >
> > "perhaps because they/'re driving" Err !!! :~(
> >
> > I can see the next road safety campaign.........
>
> Do you know of anyone that converses with passengers, or listens to
the
> radio while driving?
>
There is a slight difference between browsing the web (or switch on a
computer device and bringing up per saved web pages) and switching on
a radio or holding a conversation with someone in the passenger seat -
but then again I have know accidents happen due to drivers tuning
their radios or fumbling for tapes in the past....
Jerry.
"Eric Jarvis" <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.190e6a2d2...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > In message <713d94e64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz
<l...@v-liz.co.uk>
> > writes
> >
> > >but deaf people can't access radio (for example) and blind people
can't
> > >see photographs.
> >
> > Not all deaf people have no hearing; not a blind people have no
sight.
> >
>
> the fact is that some deaf people enjoy music...they
> don't hear it in the same way as hearing people do, but
> they can experience the sound as vibration
>
Is there not ATM a rather famous female musician who is deaf, and
never mind that a certain composer was deaf.
Eric Jarvis
Evelyn Glennie comes immediately to mind...I've
choreographed a deaf dancer some years back...people are
capable of all sorts of things that aren't very likely
jake
>
>> >Right; but on the other hand, maybe it would be better to provide the
>> >text as text, and propose its visual styling via the stylesheet.
>> >That's working better and better with time, and I'd say the majority
>> >of the images-of-text that I see on web pages would be improved by it.
>>
>> A big part of the visual styling of a site is the appropriate use of
>> text and font style.
>
>If you're willing to make that "a big part" of your site, then you're
>going to have a big disappointment when you look over my shoulder as I
>read it on my palmtop. And that's only one out of many diverse
>browsing situations that your web pages can expect to encounter.
>
to live with the fact that you are not going to enjoy the same
experience as people using laptops/PCs. That's the way it is. Your
choice.
... rather like those good folk who think that having 3 square inches of
LCD on their mobile phones is going to give them 'mobile surfing' some
day.
>> Whether we want to use shadowing, graduation, or
>> just plain exotic fonts then at present a graphic is the only way to go.
>
>Erm, yeah, and how much of that survives the real WWW out there?
>
You jest, surely?
>Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against a visually attractive web
>page - far from it, I welcome it when the browsing situation makes it
>feasible. But I'm not going to let other browsing situations suffer
>for the sake of pretending that they WWW is DTP WYSIWYG, because I
>know that it really isn't.
Sorry, but designing 'text only' sites is not the way to go ;-)
>
>cheers
regards.
--
Jake
jake
> jake <ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> >I also don't think blind people will be interested in my husband's
>> >semi-commercial site - the only function of which is to showcase his
>> >artwork.
>>
>> If he's offering a service to the public -- then the site should conform
>> to the norms of accessibility. It shouldn't be that difficult. Why not
>> post the URL and let us have a look?
>Hahaha
>Because you lot know what you're doing!
>However, if you promise not to shred me to bits, here it is:
>http://www.spectrus.net.
It's a nice looking site. A few behind-the-scenes changes and it would
be OK.
>
>I *know* two problems already exist:
>I shouldn't really have a 'still to come' bit on the home page (but D
>insisted!)
No. That's fine ............. just so long as we get to see them soon
:-)
>I'll need to make the main images for the framed bits smaller. I thought
>they were small enough for 800x600 monitors, and in Webster and Fresco they
>are, but not on IE, which has bigger 'furniture' defaults.
Yes. Almost there -- but not quite.
>For this reason, I've just bought HomeSite, so that I can work on the PC,
>but it seems to be a lot more complicated than HTMLEdit, which I'm using
>ATM, so I'll have to get through the learning curve, as well as working out
>how to ftp from the pc!
I started out with Notepad and never look back, er, forwards.
>
>> >Therefore, I find I can't get incensed that Bobby complains that
>> >the text colour may cause problems with the background colour - I accept
>> >this, but think that people who have problems with it won't be able to see
>> >his artwork properly in any case.
>> People with some forms of 'colour-blindness' will have trouble reading
>> text if the text colour and the background colour are mis-matched.
>I've seen various usability sites recommending that web authors shouldn't
>change the default blue link and purple vlink colours, but I'm pretty
>certain at least one of my colour blind colleagues can't see the difference
>between them.
>
The important thing is 'contrast'. There is a site that will simulate
the 3 kinds of colour blindness and give you an idea of how your site
looks.
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/
>> Recently, on alt.html.critique, one site designer asked for comment.
>> Among the accessibility problems that was commented on was the fact that
>> it contained a short 'welcoming' video.
>> No problems for the visually impaired.
>> But as he hadn't provided either:
>> (a) captioning on the video, or
>> (b) a transcript
>> it was inaccessible to deaf people.
>
>It wouldn't be viewable on vanilla !Webster or !Fresco!
But would you be able to *hear* it?
>
>
>> BTW. Nice Web site ............ like the photography.
>Tx
>I've still got quite a lot of the safari pix to re-scan.
>I did them on a flatbed, but now have a pukka film scanner :-))) - but it's
>actually locating the original slides.....
I hope your slide scanner has an automatic feed, otherwise it is going
to take an awful long time to do a lot of scanning. And of, course, even
with ICE or FARE you're going to spend a lot of time with the cloning
tool if you want big enlargements :-(
>
>I first did everything in a wysiwyg program. A big mistake.
>I got a lot of flak from my fellow RISC OS users about it, despite the fact
>that it read perfectly in !Fresco, which was ATT the only viable RISC OS
>browser.
What machine ? Amega?
>Apparently they didn't like the 'inflated taggging'. Interestingly,
>although it wasn't optimised for IE, not one of the many IE users who
>emailed me ever complained about it (at the beginning I didn't realise there
>was a browser issue!)
>
>Anyway, the current image-manipulation section won't be retagged, as it's
>only really relevant to !Photodesk users, who like me are mostly migrating to
>Photoshop (!PDesk isn't being developed). One day I'll put up some of my
>Photoshop/PSP stuff and will tag that properly.
>
>Liz
>
--
Jake
Alan J. Flavell
> >You might need some punctuation, otherwise
> >a speaking browser could read a succession of ALT texts as if they
> >were a sentence, and that might not be appropriate. ("Photo of a bull
> >in the water canoeing" is in my collection...).
> I'm a little unclear what you're saying here.
I'm saying that if you're coding alt="" for a piece of decoration,
then you need to review what will happen to the material which was
before and after the decoration, to make sure it doesn't flow together
and make a nonsense in the resulting rendering.
> Judicious use of punctuation is the norm if you're checking your
> page's output though text2speech software.
I'm distinctly unclear what you're saying with this dephic
pronouncement. Could I remind you that one of the principles of
accessibility is to use the simplest language that's appropriate to
the context? So would you care to translate "Judicious use" (does
that mean use less of it? take care over it? How could anyone usefuly
take care over something if he hadn't been instructed in what to aim
for? - I keep seeing alt="spacer" and alt="for layout only" and
suchlike, from folks who claim to be "taking care") - and "is the
norm" - into plain English?
all the best.
Alan J. Flavell
You lose.
Pity, really. You showed promise.
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html#smac3
:-}
Eric Jarvis
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.53.03...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk>, Alan
> J. Flavell <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >page - far from it, I welcome it when the browsing situation makes it
> >feasible. But I'm not going to let other browsing situations suffer
> >for the sake of pretending that they WWW is DTP WYSIWYG, because I
> >know that it really isn't.
>
> Sorry, but designing 'text only' sites is not the way to go ;-)
>
Alan quite clearly didn't suggest that
the alternative to fixed every damn thing unresizable
WYSINWYG abortions is not necessarily plain text...it is
the sort of flexible design that fits the medium...that
allows for an immense amount of visual appeal...it allows
for animation...interactivity...it merely requires not
depending on excluding visitors and not depending on the
undependable
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I am a man of many parts, unfortunately most of
them are no longer in stock"
Liz
Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
> Liz wrote:
>
> > In message <yDgItNEtl$o+E...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk>
> > BH <to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> They may wish to buy some for a gift so a long description would be
> >> useful
> > But that contradicts all the usability advice to keep text on a site very
> > brief! I've had major issues with D already about cutting his text.
>
> If the text is already written - keep it! As BH suggests, this is excellent
> content for D-link or longdesc pages.
Hmmm
Maybe they'd be better than the JS popup I'm now not going to attempt.
Trouble is my HTML tutor (Elizabeth Castro's) doesn't mention either of them!
I'll do a web search when I get a bit of time.
> There's always people like that out there, but please don't think
> accessibility is just for them. Even though I'm currently fully sighted,
> I'd be interested in the photos plus a bit of story/diary/journal behind
> the pictures - what you liked, what you'd recommend. I don't need to be
> blind or partially sighted to enjoy a good story.
There's lots of text on my site: I hate these photo sites where you just get a
series of pix with absolutely no text and tiny forward and backward arrows
which don't tell you what you're going to.
Mind you, I suppose if the pix were good enough, fully sighted people
wouldn't need any text, on the 'picture paints a thousand words' scenario.
(I'm just nosey, where? when? how? etc.!)
> If they are dependant on the CSS for accessibility - yes. CSS is an optional
> presentation layer on top of presentation-independant HTML.
Is this why, if I save out text from many (all?) CSS pages, I get all the
text twice?
> > What about all the cafes/restaurants/bars who write
> > their daily specials or indeed their whole menu on a board? It would be a
> > big time/money 'issue' for most establishments, I think. A very difficult
> > issue.
> I would apply a reasonable man test here. Would a reasonable man expect a
> daily changing menu to be available in Braille form - I would say no. Would
> a reasonable man expect a waiter to read/recite the daily menu (or portions
> of it) for him - I would say, without having providing a braille menu, yes.
Hmmm
I was in such a restaurant over the weekend.
It was so busy that I can't imagine how any of the waiters would have had
time to read the extensive menu board aloud - they were rushed off their
feet as it was.
> Considering how many waiters I encounter that recite daily specials
> (even make recommendations) while I'm reading the menu,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<cynic>
The recommendations are what they want shot of
</cynic>
Anyway, I'm learning a lot here.
I'd love to get to an evening/Saturday course to learn about web authoring
properly, but all the ones near here I've discovered only seem to deal with
Dreamweaver, not actual HTML editing.
Until I find one, I'll just have to post my HTML 101 questions here.
:-/
Liz
Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
> Liz wrote:
>
> > In message <u6n08b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>
> > Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Tell me a little about these photos - what kind of safari were you on?
> > Photo safari, but my husband was drawing, IYSWIM.
>
> Drawing? Sounds excellent. what of?
Mainly mammals and some birds. These pix aren't on his website yet, and
won't be the next section to go 'up', but will be - one day (manyana)!
> Which wildlife or scenic views did you get photos and drawings of?
> Any funny or memorable pictures, or out of the ordinary?
Just about all the usual wildlife, and a few of the less usual ones.
Haven't seen a caracal yet, nor photographed a serval.
I haven't got everything I've photographed 'up' yet - particularly all the
birds! - just a small (comparatively!) selection of my thousands of slides!
IMO, Kenya isn't spectacularly scenic, though I believe Hell's Gate comes
pretty close. Of course, I've got shots of all the different habitats we've
visited.
This year for the first time I visited a tribal village and took lots of
photos there.
> I like the sound of your picture collection - although I haven't seen them.
Feel free to have a shuftie, any time.
Positive criticism welcome! (she quaked)
> Which countries did you visit; Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa?
> > Kenya most often, Tanzania once,
> I'd like to spend some time there, especially around the Sereyengeti and
> the Kilamanjaro (sp?)
The Serengeti is great: best if you go at the right time of year, when the
wildebeest are there. From late July to early November (most years) most/all
of them are in the Masai Mara, in Kenya.
If you ever go, I'd highly recommend the Ngorongoro caldera.
I haven't done mountain climbing (I'd sooner pull my hair out) but I've
often read that Mt Kenya has quite a few advantages over Kili. Kili is, of
course, the *highest*, which is its own attraction. You could research them
both before making a decision: many people (apparently) do them both in one
trip (and/or Mt Meru).
> > KwaZulu Natal is a possibility - one day, and I quite fancy Namibia,
> > though D. doesn't.
> I think you are drawing a good enough picture just in text, sounds like
> you'll have no problems putting some descriptive alt text and title text
> for your photos. :-)
I never had any problems with writing text: the problem is getting me stopped!
There is loads of text on my site. In fact some of them pages have no images
apart from the 'logos' at the top. The pix mostly have titles or are
described in the text; all have alt-text, though as I said, the alt-text is
much truncated from the earlier version: which I was chastised for anyway!
It seems you just can't please everyone.
> Have you noticed that many people's real photo collection normally has a few
> jotted notes on the back, describing time and place?
Probably.
> Sometimes theres a good story behind that a picture cannot fully tell.
> Even when someone is showing you their photo album, do they do it in
> complete silence, or do they share a funny or beautiful moment?
It doesn't happen very often, but when it does I hope they'll stay quiet
until I ask for info about a particular picture. (most of my photographic
friends, like me, shoot slides)
> Wouldn't you say there's more depth to pictures and drawings than the drawings
> themselves?
Oh yes, I do several slide talks a year to camera clubs/wildlife groups.
As I said, the problem is stopping me talking!
D always says I talk too fast: but I've got so much to say, and usually a
limited time to say it in!
jake
<to...@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>
>You could use a D link this is a link to a text only page which has a
>paragraph saying what is in the photo or use the longdesc
><img src="foo.gif" border="0" width="454" height="454" alt=" this is
>foo in all his glory " longdesc="foos-glory.html">
>
>However, the longdesc is not yet fully supported by screen readers :-(
>
Fully supported by Home Page Reader
>
[snip]
>
>I would agreed you must build in some backwards compatibility.
>However, _for most_ upgrading to a new browser is not a problem, just
>lack of knowledge. There is still a lot out there using IE5.00 which
>is 1995 and even some using win 3.11 that comes down the reasonable
>adjustments bit
>
I was using IE5 until a month or so ago, when I discovered that Home
Page Reader with IE5 has a problem with the way some sites use frames --
so I had to implement an instant upgrade to IE6 (quite painless)
[snip]
>Take Wales how many can read Welsh
about 500,000 out of 3 million, say 20%
> but look at all the money spent on producing it You judge your
>society by the way you treat your minority's is how most look at it.
>
>
[snip]
>Barrie,
>
--
Jake
jake
Flavell <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes
Hmmm .......... about as close as you can get to producing a text-only
site without trying.....
Keep practising. It's just a question of time.
;-)
--
Jake
jake
>
>> >You might need some punctuation, otherwise
>> >a speaking browser could read a succession of ALT texts as if they
>> >were a sentence, and that might not be appropriate. ("Photo of a bull
>> >in the water canoeing" is in my collection...).
>
>> I'm a little unclear what you're saying here.
>
>I'm saying that if you're coding alt="" for a piece of decoration,
>then you need to review what will happen to the material which was
>before and after the decoration, to make sure it doesn't flow together
>and make a nonsense in the resulting rendering.
>
>> Judicious use of punctuation is the norm if you're checking your
>> page's output though text2speech software.
>
>I'm distinctly unclear what you're saying with this dephic
>pronouncement.
[snip]
I thought it was quite clear, but let's try again.
Running your page through a text-to-speech browser as part of your
testing is a pretty standard procedure. Ensuring that you have adequate
punctuation in your text is pretty much part of that testing.
>
>all the best.
>
You too.
--
Jake
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>If you expect to access the Web through a palmtop you are going to have
>to live with the fact that you are not going to enjoy the same
>experience as people using laptops/PCs. That's the way it is. Your
>choice.
I sometimes use a palmtop to browse; some sites work (often by degrading
gracefully); some are painful to use; and some simply break.
There *is* a choice to be made by site creators.
Liz
jake <ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'll need to make the main images for the framed bits smaller. I thought
> >they were small enough for 800x600 monitors, and in Webster/!Fresco they
> >are, but not on IE, which has bigger 'furniture' defaults.
>
> Yes. Almost there -- but not quite.
I'm pretty tempted just to change the tags to "scrolling=no", since there is
just a tiny bit not showing in IE, but then what about people who view at an
even lower resolution? :-(
Mind you, I can hardly imagine people who are interested in art choosing a
low-res monitor. But I'm sure you're all going to beg to differ on that
too.
> >For this reason, I've just bought HomeSite, so that I can work on the PC,
> >but it seems to be a lot more complicated than HTMLEdit, which I'm using
> >ATM, so I'll have to get through the learning curve, as well as working out
> >how to ftp from the pc!
> I started out with Notepad and never look back, er, forwards.
Oh, I know.
All the techies here use either !StrongEd or !Zap and look down their noses
at us lesser mortals!
> The important thing is 'contrast'. There is a site that will simulate
> the 3 kinds of colour blindness and give you an idea of how your site
> looks.
> http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/
Thanks for this link.
I'll check it out in a few minutes, when I send this up.
> >> Recently, on alt.html.critique, one site designer asked for comment.
> >> Among the accessibility problems that was commented on was the fact that
> >> it contained a short 'welcoming' video.
> >> No problems for the visually impaired.
> >> But as he hadn't provided either:
> >> (a) captioning on the video, or
> >> (b) a transcript
> >> it was inaccessible to deaf people.
> >
> >It wouldn't be viewable on vanilla !Webster or !Fresco!
> But would you be able to *hear* it?
Not on the vanilla browsers, which I have.
(I CBB with things that don't work 'out of the box', and need lots of little
PD proglets to give full capability: I'm an archetypcial 'user': not the
least 'techie'.)
I'd probably get a big box with a 'no plug-in' message.
Or else the browser would crash.
> >I did them on a flatbed, but now have a pukka film scanner :-))) - but it's
> >actually locating the original slides.....
> I hope your slide scanner has an automatic feed, otherwise it is going
> to take an awful long time to do a lot of scanning.
It's the new Minolta Duo-Scan.
It seems much faster on my pc than the camera club's Coolscan works on the
G4, thank goodness, and of course has the advantage of doing four slides in
one 'run'.
> And of, course, even
> with ICE or FARE you're going to spend a lot of time with the cloning
> tool if you want big enlargements :-(
At the moment, I'm mostly doing big reductions (for the web).
I don't use the built in dust remover. If I'm worried, I give the slide a
blast of canned air.
> > I first did everything in a wysiwyg program. A big mistake.
> > I got a lot of flak from my fellow RISC OS users about it, despite the fact
> > that it read perfectly in !Fresco, which was ATT the only viable RISC OS
> > browser.
> > What machine? Amega?
Nah.
Believe it or not, the Omega hasn't actually materialised yet.
It's been RSN for at least 18 months/2 years.
The machine I'm using ATM is a RiscPC; the current RISC OS model is the Iyonix.
Liz
Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> You might like to change <b> tags to strong; <i> to <em> and remove any
> <font> tags,
One of the first things I learned was that not all browsers read <strong>
and <em> as bold or italic, and in fact some render them both the same. So
it was a positive choice. Of course, there may be some browsers which don't
render <b> and <i> for all I know, but it's six and half-a-dozen, in that
case.
> using CSS to apply the font attributes.
Huh
One day, maybe.
> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
You must be joking. One day, maybe.
Liz
Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
> Liz wrote:
>
> > Because you lot know what you're doing!
> > However, if you promise not to shred me to bits, here it is:
> > http://www.spectrus.net.
>
> Wow - the drawings are stunning, especially the image on the homepage. I
> love the way I'm following the intricate looping "gold path" starting from
> the bottom and working my way up, and then the bird suddenly "pops-out" and
> becomes immediately clear.
>
> Not to belabour the point, but a bit of text explaining the thoughts, ideas
> and inspiration behind this picture would add to my understanding (and
> appreciation).
Oh D. will give you a whole book at the drop of a hat!
Eventually, he's going to do a whole series of this genre, but that's so far
down the line, it's not even on the Still To Come list!
> >I've just bought HomeSite
> Hmmm... was that a recommendation? Since there is a free clone called "1st
> page 2000" which could have saved you a bit of money.
I know that First Page sites often crash !Fresco, as it produces
non-standard code, so didn't even consider using it. If HomeSite is as bad,
I'll be mad. I was given to believe it would just be an HTML editor, but
more powerful, than the one I'm currently using.
> > I've seen various usability sites recommending that web authors shouldn't
> > change the default blue link and purple vlink colours, but I'm pretty
> > certain at least one of my colour blind colleagues can't see the
> > difference between them.
> Luckily, blue-afflicted colour blindness is one of the rarest of conditions.
Really?
I thought blue/green was the most common.
> Reds would tend to be lighter tending toward beige. IMO your footer wording
> on the homepage is sufficiently contrasting from the background colour, so
> links of this colour seem to be comfortably readable.
I check out odd pages in 16 greys. Not pretty, but it works.
Liz
"Jerry." <use...@scarts.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>
> Is there not ATM a rather famous female musician who is deaf,
Oh yes, Evelyn Glennie.
Andy Mabbett
writes
>> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
>You must be joking.
No.
Alan J. Flavell
> I'm just wondering at which point I need to compromise what my
> husband wants with what Bobby dictates.
With respect, Bobby doesn't 'dictate' anything. It's an authoring
tool, which does a reasonable job of taking the W3C WAI guidelines,
and calling your attention to any relevant issues which it finds in
web pages. What you could then do is consult the cited guidelines and
techniques and consider how best to apply them.
Bobby isn't ideal - it's hard to see how anything _could_ be ideal -
and it's not without the occasional glitch, and frequent suboptimal
emphasis (it drives me bonkers the way it keeps suggesting up-front
that an alternative text-only site would be a nice solution - when
IMHO an alternative text-only site would be a final resort when all
else had failed).
But "satisfying Bobby" isn't an aim in its own right - and some of
those who mistakenly interpret it as their final arbiter produce
horrors like img alt="for layout only". And even table summary="for
layout only". Gorblimey.
Check previous discussions for more detailed insights.
jake
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In message <4805dbe64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk>
>writes
>>> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
>>You must be joking.
>
>No.
I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
table-based layout on a complex site. Give it another 5 years and we
should (might) be there.
It'll take time for current browsers to behave in a common fashion and
for browsers with badly implemented CSS support to be phased out to the
point where they no longer have the significance that they do at
present.
--
Jake
Liz
Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
[film scanner]
> It's the new Minolta Duo-Scan.
Oh grief, it's the Scan Dual III.
Too late at night for me!
jake
writes
[snip]
>Mind you, I can hardly imagine people who are interested in art choosing a
>low-res monitor. But I'm sure you're all going to beg to differ on that
>too.
>
Someone is bound to tell you that the ability to look at it on their PDA
or mobile phone is their birthright ;-)
>
>> >For this reason, I've just bought HomeSite, so that I can work on the PC,
>> >but it seems to be a lot more complicated than HTMLEdit, which I'm using
>> >ATM, so I'll have to get through the learning curve, as well as working out
>> >how to ftp from the pc!
>> I started out with Notepad and never look back, er, forwards.
>Oh, I know.
>All the techies here use either !StrongEd or !Zap and look down their noses
>at us lesser mortals!
>
No, I think that it's just that there weren't any editors when I
started; but I may be wrong. There seems to be a number of good
editors/site management systems out there at the moment, though.
[snip]
>
>Liz
>
--
Jake
Liz
> In message <SXTCpCqF...@gododdin.demon.co.uk>
> jake <ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The important thing is 'contrast'. There is a site that will simulate
> > the 3 kinds of colour blindness and give you an idea of how your site
> > looks.
> > http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/
> Thanks for this link.
> I'll check it out in a few minutes, when I send this up.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Let's hope that colour-blind people browse with their links underlined!
Mind you, the pix look so bad that the links are the least of the problems.
(I wonder if there's a market for artwork optimised for each of the three
groups?!)
Liz
Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <4805dbe64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk>
> writes
> >> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
> >You must be joking.
>
> No.
My current theory is that Google doesn't recognise text in tables.
I've got a page which was all in tables (images and text).
It comes top of the BBC search for the main keyword (gerenuk) (BBC weights
UK sites higher), and 5th in Alta Vista (whole web), or did a few weeks ago.
On Google it was below a hundred (I gave up then).
I looked at the source of some of the pages on the top Google page, and came
to the conclusion/hypothesis that Google wasn't seeing my text in tables on
my page. I have 'gerenuk' in the title, main text (3 times) 6 alt texts, and
metatags.
Anyway, to test my theory, I changed the layout so that the main text was on
its own above the table and only the pix were contained in a table.
Last night I had a look to see if the Google bot had found it yet, but got
distracted by the new page now occupying top position - a picture of two
dogs, one of which is called Gerenuk!
Another of web life's little mysteries.
(I know mine is 'only' a personal site, so why should I care?, but what I
can learn from it I can apply to D's site)
(Mind you, according to my stats someone reached my site with a search
string 'stipped ilands', whatever language that is, - I can't imagine what
they found (eland, maybe?), but it must have been a big disappointment!)
Liz
jake <ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <c096dae64b...@v-liz.co.uk>, Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk>
> writes
> [snip]
>
>
> >Mind you, I can hardly imagine people who are interested in art choosing a
> >low-res monitor. But I'm sure you're all going to beg to differ on that
> >too.
> >
> Someone is bound to tell you that the ability to look at it on their PDA
> or mobile phone is their birthright ;-)
> >
It is, but it's also my birthright not to optimise my site for them. ;-)
Jack Howard
> Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
>You must be joking. One day, maybe.
Indeed. That's *very* bad advice for any site that aims to display
sensibly on older browsers, especially Netscape 4.xx series ones, which,
according to other posts here, is still supplied as standard in some
large educational establishments. Once those have finally upgraded to
something more sensible, then perhaps we can all move forward to all-CSS
layout techniques, but I suspect it will be a while yet.
--
- Jack Howard, Systems Development Engineer, Firstnet Services Limited
===[ http://www.firstnet.net.uk <--- Total Internet Solutions ]===
===[ This message subject to http://www.firstnet.net.uk/disclaimer.html ]===
Alan J. Flavell
> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
> table-based layout on a complex site.
Probably true. The innate conservatism of visually-oriented
designers, many of whome learned their skills in a paper-based
environment, coupled to the fact that many of them can't make web
pages without what they suppose to be WYSIWYG page-making tools which
themselves are heavily based on pseudo-DTP HTML, means it could take
them a long time to catch up.
> Give it another 5 years and we should (might) be there.
(We _should_ be there already...)
> It'll take time for current browsers to behave in a common fashion
The whole point of inventing the WWW was to recognise the fact that
there were different display situations, and that they called for
difference presentation techniques. So unless you explain more
carefully what you suppose "in a common fashion" to mean, I'm going to
have to guess.
> for browsers with badly implemented CSS support to be phased out to the
> point where they no longer have the significance that they do at
> present.
Well, to avoid any accusations of special-pleading I'll take a page
made by somebody else, with whom I have no connection.
Aside from echoing Nick Kew's inevitable "Aaaargh, microfonts"
reaction, this site seems to me to represent a viable approach to the
problem. (I might have allowed some more of the basic CSS through to
NN4.* versions instead of hiding it away and giving them a rather
hair-shirt presentation, but that's the author's right to decide.)
Later you could visit their page
http://www.oyster-web.co.uk/accessible-web-design.html
cheers
Alan J. Flavell
> >http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html#smac3
>
> Hmmm .......... about as close as you can get to producing a text-only
> site
I thought you'd be capable of following a reasoned argument without
needing a picture-strip to help you...
> without trying.....
Oh, I _can_ be very trying, believe me.
BH
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>
>>That is what a "D" link is you centre it under the photo
>><a href="foo.html">D</a>
>>you place all your descriptions on that page D for description. Most VI
>>users are aware of what D links are used for.
>
>This is fine if you don't care what your site looks like, but I would
>regard having a D under each image as ugly, both as an author and as a
>viewer.
I would agree it is not the best way of doing it and the longdesc is
the correct way to go, but the uptake by the screen reader manufactures
is slow However, if more was used on sites then they may start to use
it.
Barrie,
--
Barrie Heaton
Andy Mabbett
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
>
>>You must be joking. One day, maybe.
>
>Indeed. That's *very* bad advice for any site that aims to display
>sensibly on older browsers, especially Netscape 4.xx series ones,
Rubbish.
<http://www.spectrus.net/caper2.htm> does not need its table [1]. It is
not dissimilar to:
<http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm>
but uses no tables and displays perfectly adequately in NS 4.7
Indeed, all the ages on the WMBC website display without tables, apart
from a few older ages I simply haven; got around to converting, and the
home page, work on which is in hand - and those with tabular data, of
course.
Or perhaps, where you wrote "sensibly", you - foolishly - meant
"identically"?
[1] Though a graphic of the word "Spectrus" needs better "alt" text than
"logo"!
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>It'll take time for current browsers to behave in a common fashion
It will take longer than forever; how can a regular browser on a high-
res 21" monitor behave like one on a low-res 15" monitor? Like Lynx?
Like a PDA's browser? Like an aural browser? Like some as- yet
unavailable device, such as a heads- up display?
Andy Mabbett
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>It is not dissimilar to:
>
><http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm>
>
>but uses
"but that uses"
Jerry.
"Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:O4XWxTMn...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
<snip>
> Indeed, all the ages on the WMBC website display without tables,
apart
> from a few older ages I simply haven; got around to converting, and
the
> home page, work on which is in hand - and those with tabular data,
of
> course.
>
Are web pages subject to the age discrimination act ?... :~)
jake
><jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>>> Then get rid of tables used for layout...
>>
>>>You must be joking. One day, maybe.
>>
>>Indeed. That's *very* bad advice for any site that aims to display
>>sensibly on older browsers, especially Netscape 4.xx series ones,
>
>Rubbish.
>
><http://www.spectrus.net/caper2.htm> does not need its table [1]. It is
>not dissimilar to:
>
><http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm>
>
>but uses no tables and displays perfectly adequately in NS 4.7
Tables are usually used to preserve multi-column layout using browsers
of various vintages.
Your site:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm
is an attractive one, but is mono-column. Displaying that page wouldn't
be much of a challenge to any browser after Netscape 2.0 ;-)
Now. As soon as someone shows me that operational site with its 4-column
layout *then* I am going to be (nearly) convinced.
>
[snip]
regards.
--
Jake
jake
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In message <HZHnq$wVzPp...@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, jake
><ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>>It'll take time for current browsers to behave in a common fashion
>
>It will take longer than forever; how can a regular browser on a high-
>res 21" monitor behave like one on a low-res 15" monitor? Like Lynx?
>Like a PDA's browser? Like an aural browser? Like some as- yet
>unavailable device, such as a heads- up display?
.... assume I'm talking standard laptop/PC displays. Does that help any?
--
Jake
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>Now. As soon as someone shows me that operational site with its
>4-column layout *then* I am going to be (nearly) convinced.
I assume you mean:
<http://www.spectrus.net/inconcert/thums.htm>
which is actually five columns, and currently has a scroll- bar at
anything under 850px.
A similar layout can be achieved by:
<div style="float:left">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
</div>
<br style="clear: both">
<div style="float:left">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
</div>
<br style="clear: both">
<div style="float:left">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
</div>
and so on; with padding as required.
Though as that isn't actually a set of tabular data, the following:
<div style="float:left">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
<img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
</div>
degrades more gracefully, and works better as windows are narrowed or
widened.
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>It'll take time for current browsers to behave in a common fashion
>>
>>It will take longer than forever; how can a regular browser on a high-
>>res 21" monitor behave like one on a low-res 15" monitor? Like Lynx?
>>Like a PDA's browser? Like an aural browser? Like some as- yet
>>unavailable device, such as a heads- up display?
>
>.... assume I'm talking standard laptop/PC displays. Does that help
>any?
No.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
><http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm>
>
>but uses no tables and displays perfectly adequately in NS 4.7
>
>Indeed, all the ages on the WMBC website display without tables, apart
>from a few older ages I simply haven; got around to converting, and the
>home page, work on which is in hand - and those with tabular data, of
>course.
And we've all seen what difficulties you've had doing it.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Andy Mabbett
<$b...@ckdog.co.uk> writes
>>Indeed, all the ages on the WMBC website display without tables, apart
>>from a few older ages I simply haven; got around to converting, and the
>>home page, work on which is in hand - and those with tabular data, of
>>course.
>
>And we've all seen what difficulties you've had doing it.
I wasn't born an HTML/ CSS expert. So?
Alan J. Flavell
> Andy Mabbet:
> ><http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm>
> >
> >but uses no tables and displays perfectly adequately in NS 4.7
>
> Tables are usually used to preserve multi-column layout using browsers
> of various vintages.
I think the hon. Usenauts are well aware of that, you know.
And that's especially frustrating in presentation situations where
"multi column layout" is obstructing usability of the page.
When done with CSS, the presentation can adapt itself (or, if all else
fails, the reader can step in to make it adapt) to a wide range of
presentation situations. You clearly haven't learned that yet, and
are still trotting out the old straw-man arguments about the only
alternative to DTP being text-only sites.
> Your site:
> http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm
> is an attractive one,
Agreed...
> but is mono-column.
And much better for it, compared with the clutter that one gets
on the average stack-it-high commercial web page.
> Displaying that page wouldn't
> be much of a challenge to any browser after Netscape 2.0 ;-)
A true master of the art does not despise simple materials.
Jack Howard
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In message <zROq496wnVp+Ew$A...@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, jake
><ja...@gododdin.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Now. As soon as someone shows me that operational site with its
>>4-column layout *then* I am going to be (nearly) convinced.
>
>I assume you mean:
>
> <http://www.spectrus.net/inconcert/thums.htm>
>
>which is actually five columns, and currently has a scroll- bar at
>anything under 850px.
<much snipping below>
>A similar layout can be achieved by:
> <div style="float:left">
> <img src="wibble.jpeg" alt="">
> </div>
>
>degrades more gracefully, and works better as windows are narrowed or
>widened.
And that's going to display sensibly, as a 5 column layout, in NN4.7?
AFAIK NN4.xx don't understand CSS properly.
Isofarro
> In message <bql18b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>
> Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If the text is already written - keep it! As BH suggests, this is
>> excellent content for D-link or longdesc pages.
>
> I'll do a web search when I get a bit of time.
This might save you a bit of time then:
http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse2.htm
http://www.webaim.org/howto/graphics/accessiblegraphics3#longdesc
>> If they are dependant on the CSS for accessibility - yes. CSS is an
>> optional presentation layer on top of presentation-independant HTML.
>
> Is this why, if I save out text from many (all?) CSS pages, I get all the
> text twice?
Ermm. Not sure what you mean, the text content shouldn't be duplicated. What
tends to happen when pages with style sheets get saved is that some
browsers ignore the style sheet. But it should never duplicate text
(content).
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Isofarro
>
> "Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:u2m18b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
>> Jerry. wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in
> message
>> > news:R9hBQOL+...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
>> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> for people
>> >> using speech browsers (perhaps because they/'re driving); and for
>> >> search engines.
>> >
>> > "perhaps because they/'re driving" Err !!! :~(
>> >
>> > I can see the next road safety campaign.........
>>
>> Do you know of anyone that converses with passengers, or listens to
>> the radio while driving?
>>
>
> There is a slight difference between browsing the web (or switch on a
> computer device and bringing up per saved web pages)
"Computer. Load directions web page"
"Done. Would you like me to read it aloud?"
"Computer. Yes."
True, its slightly different.
Isofarro
> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
> table-based layout on a complex site.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/boxpunch/demo2.html - I'd like to see
you emulate that using your tables, alongside supporting a 100-page website
using it.
Isofarro
> My current theory is that Google doesn't recognise text in tables.
> I've got a page which was all in tables (images and text).
> It comes top of the BBC search for the main keyword (gerenuk) (BBC weights
> UK sites higher), and 5th in Alta Vista (whole web), or did a few weeks
> ago. On Google it was below a hundred (I gave up then).
Google's ranking system is geared toward ranking based what other people
think of your site. If people like your site and what it offers, they tend
to link to it. A link to your site is to google a vote that your site is
worthy.
Take for example searching using the two keywords: html faq - currently top
is a domain name for sale website, nothing much to do with a FAQ. There may
have been a FAQ there at some time, with tonnes of people linking to it.
But now nothing. This suggests that its not the content that weights the
ranking.
Isofarro
> In message <7es18b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>
> Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
>> Luckily, blue-afflicted colour blindness is one of the rarest of
>> conditions.
> Really?
> I thought blue/green was the most common.
Green is the most common, followed by red. (This is according to Joe Clark's
excellent book: "Building Accessible Websites").
>> Reds would tend to be lighter tending toward beige. IMO your footer
>> wording on the homepage is sufficiently contrasting from the background
>> colour, so links of this colour seem to be comfortably readable.
>
> I check out odd pages in 16 greys. Not pretty, but it works.
Greyscale views of a website are a good way to determine if there's
sufficient contrast between text and background colours. Though it doesn't
"predict" all of the colour blindness deficiencies.
Andy Mabbett
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>degrades more gracefully, and works better as windows are narrowed or
>>widened.
>
>And that's going to display sensibly, as a 5 column layout, in NN4.7?
Why do you equate a fixed, five-column display, of non- tabular content,
with "sensible"?
>AFAIK NN4.xx don't understand CSS properly.
Indeed. Just as you don't seem to understand "degrades more gracefully".
Andy Mabbett
J. Flavell <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes
>
>> Your site:
>> http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/gallery/NuttallS/Ruff20030420.htm
>> is an attractive one,
>
>Agreed...
>
>> but is mono-column.
>
>And much better for it, compared with the clutter that one gets on the
>average stack-it-high commercial web page.
<blush>
I'm flattered.
Andy Mabbett
<spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> writes
>> I check out odd pages in 16 greys. Not pretty, but it works.
>
>Greyscale views of a website are a good way to determine if there's
>sufficient contrast between text and background colours.
This "Bookmarklet" (for IE, and NS7) may be of use, too:
<http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html#zap_colors>
There are more, equally useful, Bookmarklets on that site, and on:
<http://www.bookmarklets.com/>
Eric Jarvis
>
> Now. As soon as someone shows me that operational site with its 4-column
> layout *then* I am going to be (nearly) convinced.
>
when somebody shows me a 4 column layout that doesn't
completely fall apart with text large enough for me to
read then I might conceivably be impressed...though most
3+ column layouts I've seen were pretty pointless
putting text in columns makes sense in print...it makes
no sense for screen display...a multiple box model makes
sense for screen display and is easy to make both
flexibly and with css...it also generally degrades
gracefully
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
jake
<spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> writes
>jake wrote:
>
>> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
>> table-based layout on a complex site.
>
>http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/boxpunch/demo2.html - I'd like to see
>you emulate that using your tables, alongside supporting a 100-page website
>using it.
>
>
--
Jake
Eric Jarvis
not really...this group is supposed to be about web
authoring...not piddling about making things look pretty
on your own desktop
standards change...you may be prepared to go back to
sites you built and do a new version for free...or you
may be prepared to shaft your clients by building sites
that will need rebuilding within a year or two...I prefer
to know that as the hardware changes what I've already
built doesn't have to
Jack Howard
>
>> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
>> table-based layout on a complex site.
>
>http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/boxpunch/demo2.html - I'd like to see
>you emulate that using your tables, alongside supporting a 100-page website
>using it.
Now that really is interesting - and no, I don't think I'd want to do it
in tables! I was playing with floating divs on a new section of a site
the other night, seems to work quite well, not sure what will happen for
NN4.7 users, though.
Eric Jarvis
> In message <plv38b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>, Isofarro
> <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> writes
> >jake wrote:
> >
> >> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
> >> table-based layout on a complex site.
> >
> >http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/boxpunch/demo2.html - I'd like to see
> >you emulate that using your tables, alongside supporting a 100-page website
> >using it.
>
> Now that really is interesting - and no, I don't think I'd want to do it
> in tables! I was playing with floating divs on a new section of a site
> the other night, seems to work quite well, not sure what will happen for
> NN4.7 users, though.
>
if you have the content marked up logically it can't go
far wrong...though I tend to deal with NN4's css
peculiarities with the @import hack...so if the float
doesn't work the way you want it you can do something
completely different for that browser
jake
<w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes
>jake wrote:
>>
>> Now. As soon as someone shows me that operational site with its 4-column
>> layout *then* I am going to be (nearly) convinced.
>>
>
>when somebody shows me a 4 column layout that doesn't
>completely fall apart with text large enough for me to
>read then I might conceivably be impressed...though most
>3+ column layouts I've seen were pretty pointless
>
>putting text in columns makes sense in print...it makes
>no sense for screen display...a multiple box model makes
>sense for screen display and is easy to make both
>flexibly and with css...it also generally degrades
>gracefully
>
So....... uh ........ do you know of a 4 column CSS-based site?
--
Jake
Andreas Prilop
> For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
> personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
Googlebot is blind, is keen to index all your ALT texts, and make them
available to the world through <http://images.google.com/> .
--
But thats what FP puts in to the page, so i asume thats correct
Harry H. Arends in microsoft.public.frontpage.client
Jack Howard
writes
>My current theory is that Google doesn't recognise text in tables.
>I've got a page which was all in tables (images and text).
>It comes top of the BBC search for the main keyword (gerenuk) (BBC weights
>UK sites higher), and 5th in Alta Vista (whole web), or did a few weeks ago.
>On Google it was below a hundred (I gave up then).
Google ranks by a variety of methods, including how many other sites
link to yours, DMOZ placement, etc. I believe domain keywords also
matter, which appears to be born out by my experience, as my domain is
hyphenated to make it easier to read, hence SEs see the two words,
instead of the "trendy"
runthemalltogetherinanunreadablemessofcharacters.com approach.
Andreas Prilop
> My current theory is that Google doesn't recognise text in tables.
It does. Otherwise the majority of the web would not be indexed ;-)
> I looked at the source of some of the pages on the top Google page, and came
> to the conclusion/hypothesis that Google wasn't seeing my text in tables on
> my page. I have 'gerenuk' in the title, main text (3 times) 6 alt texts, and
> metatags.
Google does not index <meta keywords> or <meta description>. ALT text is
indexed by <http://images.google.com/> but not by <http://www.google.com/> .
--
Top posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Jack Howard
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
>Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
>> For example I don't suppose any blind person being remotely interested in my
>> personal 'photos from safari' and 'image manipulation' website.
>Googlebot is blind, is keen to index all your ALT texts, and make them
>available to the world through <http://images.google.com/> .
Doh! You've a point, there...
<checks>
Actually, they seem to index by file name, not alt text. An image
search for "Candia" should, if based on alt contents, produce lots of
hits from inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk, yet on the first page there are none
at all, just lots of "candia.jpg" and "candia.gif" images...
However when I search images for "inkubus sukkubus" the first one to
come up is my front page graphic, "candia-bw-01.jpg", who's alt text is
alt="Welcome to Inkubus-Sukkubus.co.uk!".
Searching for "Candia Tony" (without ") produces one of my images which
has both names in it's filename, but none of the ones which have
variations on "Tony & Candia" in the alt text.
Will have to look deeper into this...
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>>And we've all seen what difficulties you've had doing it.
>
>I wasn't born an HTML/ CSS expert. So?
It's more flattery Andy. If you have problems, what chance us mere
mortals? <grin>
Andreas Prilop
> Actually, they seem to index by file name, not alt text.
Both file names and ALT texts are indexed by images.google.com.
> An image
> search for "Candia" should, if based on alt contents, produce lots of
> hits from inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk, yet on the first page there are none
> at all, just lots of "candia.jpg" and "candia.gif" images...
<http://images.google.com/images?q=candia+site:uk&filter=0>
> but none of the ones which have
> variations on "Tony & Candia" in the alt text.
... having which URL?
Richard Watson
> In message <plv38b...@sidious.isolani.co.uk>, Isofarro
> <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> writes
>>jake wrote:
>>
>>> I think it'll be a long time before CSS-based layout will replace
>>> table-based layout on a complex site.
Can you show me an example of a non-cssable layout, just so that I
know the kind of thing you mean?
>>http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/boxpunch/demo2.html - I'd like to see
>>you emulate that using your tables, alongside supporting a 100-page website
>>using it.
>>
>>
> When I get some time I might do just that: 1 table/ 3 columns?
Tappety....
done it yet? ;-)
--
Richard Watson
http://www.opencolo.com/
High Quality, Value for money colocation
Richard Watson
> No, I think that it's just that there weren't any editors when I
> started; but I may be wrong. There seems to be a number of good
> editors/site management systems out there at the moment, though.
Shirley you have not been around for longer than *emacs* ?
Richard Watson
> My current theory is that Google doesn't recognise text in tables.
> I've got a page which was all in tables (images and text).
> It comes top of the BBC search for the main keyword (gerenuk) (BBC weights
> UK sites higher), and 5th in Alta Vista (whole web), or did a few weeks ago.
> On Google it was below a hundred (I gave up then).
What is the <title> of that page?
I've recently been playing^W experimenting with changing what's in the
<title> on opencolo.com and I'm now managing to get #1 on google for
quite a few colo-related searches (e.g. colo uk, low cost
colocation). Probably I should keep quiet about this ;-)
IME if you have (a) several links to the page from other sites and (b)
the actual phrase you want found in the <title> you stand a good
chance of doing well with google.
HTH.
Andy Mabbett
<$b...@ckdog.co.uk> writes
>>>And we've all seen what difficulties you've had doing it.
>>
>>I wasn't born an HTML/ CSS expert. So?
>
>It's more flattery Andy. If you have problems, what chance us mere
>mortals? <grin>
I'll do my best to educate you ;-)
Isofarro
> Google does not index <meta keywords> or <meta description>. ALT text is
> indexed by <http://images.google.com/> but not by <http://www.google.com/>
Errmm. Google.com does index alt text - I previously had an alt text of
"Frequently Aaked Questions" for the alt.html FAQ, and I did rank top for
that. It was only in the alt that Aaked appeared.
Richard Watson
> So....... uh ........ do you know of a 4 column CSS-based site?
I can't think of one OTTOMH but I did once write some css for a
4-column (or was it 5) front page to a site although most of the rest
of the site was 3-columns. I didn't like this kind of layout but
having written it, it does seem to work better than tables if you
shrink your page width - it can be made to break into 2+3 or 3+2
instead.
Personally I don't find the column paradigm very interesting. I'd
rather think of pages as being content with marginalia one or either
side.
Andreas Prilop
> Errmm. Google.com does index alt text - I previously had an alt text of
> "Frequently Aaked Questions" for the alt.html FAQ, and I did rank top for
> that. It was only in the alt that Aaked appeared.
No. Other people link to you with "aaked".
*** Be sure to turn pictures off before visiting the following. ***
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.html-faq.com+aaked>
Alan J. Flavell
> ALT text is
> indexed by <http://images.google.com/>
Confirmed; on the other hand it doesn't seem to use the TITLE
attribute.
> but not by <http://www.google.com/> .
Curiously, it says at
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/article.php/2167891
that ALT text is indexed by AltaVista, Google and Teoma.
I can see no evidence that, at the present time, the _text_ part of
Google is indexing alt texts. I don't seem to be able to persuade
AltaVista to find my ALT texts either, despite what searchenginewatch
is saying.
This seems to be yet another good reason NOT to make pretty images of
important/significant text content (not even if one has the wit to
repeat the text in the ALT attribute - a degree of wit that seems to
be widely missing, if the evidence of the web pages out there is to be
believed!).
Isofarro
> Isofarro <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Errmm. Google.com does index alt text - I previously had an alt text of
>> "Frequently Aaked Questions" for the alt.html FAQ, and I did rank top for
>> that. It was only in the alt that Aaked appeared.
>
> No. Other people link to you with "aaked".
I can't prove or disprove that.
> *** Be sure to turn pictures off before visiting the following. ***
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.html-faq.com+aaked>
<img src="/ahfaq.gif" alt="alt.html Frequently Aaked Questions" /> -- the
only occurance of aaked