http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32023.html

Interesting that they appear to frown on the "to hell with bad browsers,
upgrade to real CSS or bugger off" approach, note the comments near the
end about access keys, tab index, etc.

--
- 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 ]===

In post <G4w7S7AH3lJ$Ew+b@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk>
Jack Howard said...


using accesskeys and tabindex do hinder accessibility but following
the guidelines in no way creates an " unusable, perhaps even
inaccessible, site". thats just pure and simple bullshit.

--
brucie a. blackford. 29/July/2003 09:59:21 pm kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/

brucie <brucie01@loser.brucies.com> writes:
Following the guidelines without understanding why they exist can do,
though I'd be surprised if it actually *reduced* accessibility rather
than simply not doing much *for* it (tabindex, etc, excepted).

Certainly believing "Checker"OfTheMonth Approved!!! means the
guidelines have been followed can do, which may be what they refer to.
I think for a challenge someday I will have to make a page that
automatic checkers mark as level 3 approved and is entirely
inaccessible in even common graphical browsers.

--
Chris

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:43:03 +0100, Jack Howard
<jhoward@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:

Strange, I didn't realise that using "real" CSS was at all a "bugger off"
approach. :-) To me, 'To hell with bad browsers' means not spending ages
working round the countless bugs in Netscape 4, not spending ages with
multiple nested tables, separating style and content to make it *more*
accessible /and/ useable. Any browser can access the content of the Trinity
website; browsers that support CSS will get more style than the others,
that's all.

I don't understand the comment about accesskey at all. Putting accesskeys
in does no harm at all in browsers that don't understand them, so what's
the problem with them?

ATB,
Matthew
--
matthew.somerville@trinity.oxford.ac.uk
Trinity College: http://www.trinity.ox.ac.uk/
Accessible Odeon: http://www.dracos.co.uk/odeon/ (now with better non-CSS
look)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthew Somerville wrote:

It can, however, sabotage the familiar shortcuts which a user might
want to use in browsers that _do_ understand them.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Jack Howard wrote:

This is an awkward bit:

working closely with target audiences and building services based
around their needs

Considering the number of times I've seen authors claiming, in effect,
that "my target audience consists of the people who want to use my web
site the way I designed it", it'll be hard to get the message over to
that kind of author about who the "target audience" really are, and
why they don't consist of people running a browser fullscreen on
600x800 using IE on MS Win/somethingorother with standard defaults.[1]

CSS is designed to be optional, so, as a matter of principle,
"downgrade to no CSS" is always an option. If the site fails (i.e the
core content cannot be accessed) under those criteria, then the design
has failed as a web page, no matter its merits as an artistic work.

ttfn

[1] Just as a nit-pick, I don't believe the popular browsers _do_
install with fullscreen mode as a standard default, so that mantra,
so often repeated by a certain kind of web author, seems to be
self-contradictory.

In post <oprs2mh8rvt9vwg0@localhost>
Matthew Somerville said...

they may conflict with what the visitor is already using or used to
using or the user agent they're using. there is no standard for
accesskeys (only some suggestions) and if there was a standard it
wouldn't be followed by everyone anyway (in my area numbers are
preferred rather than letters for example). they're only of use if the
visitor can define their own for repeat visits to the site.

--
brucie a. blackford. 29/July/2003 10:18:23 pm kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/