A new web site looking for contributors
I have just launched an easy-to-use web site
http://www.inaccessible-uk.com
where, after registering, disabled people can post reviews about their personal good and bad access experiences throughout the UK.
You need not register to search the database which is quite small at the moment, but it meets the highest level of accessibility (level AAA).
In order to offer as much information as possible to users, I need tons of useful posts - so please help to make this a great success!!
Share: 
Welcome to the forums. 
| ppat wrote: |
| [...] it meets the highest level of accessibility (level AAA). |
Simon Pieters
Share:
...and 10.3, 11.1, 13.2, 13.3...
...and possibly some more - there are very few sites that meet AAA and probably none at all if it interpreted strictly.
...good luck with the site though - I like the concept.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
Hi there - I created the site for Pat and she's asked me to respond here.
I guess it can get very subjective with some of the AAA rules, I'm very happy to hear your input. I do agree with the one about tables being used for layout, actually - I'll have a look at re-doing it with CSS when I get time.
I did test it with WebXAct - don't all bite at once, I only use that as a check to make sure I haven't forgotten something rather than a be-all and end-all
- but more importantly I got my VI friends to check that it was easily used and that the edit boxes were correctly labelled etc. in both voice browser, and text only browser, also that it works without a mouse, contrast is good, etc. The feedback was all good!
That said I'm really happy to hear if you have any more feedback or ideas, I'm sure there are things I should learn! Please contact me through my profile or with PM. Thanks!
On another note, as a disabled (mobility impaired) person myself, I think it's a very worthwhile idea of Pat's, a site that I revisit when I'm not actually working on it, so - please do contribute your reviews to the site and tell people about it!
Cheers!
Share:
Automated tests are good starting point. I could put a Flash site up that would pass most automated tests. Consider some simple changes:
- Use <strong> instead of <b> to give meaning.
- Consider Transitional doc type to a strict.
- Separate Links page links into at least separate paragraphs or a definition list.
- The URL's on the links page will not be easily read on a screen reader! Consider making the title the link.
- Consider skip navigation links.
- Acronyms and Abbreviation tags missing…
Johan De Silva / Portfolio
Share:
| Johan007 wrote: |
| Use <strong> instead of <b> to give meaning. |
Simon Pieters
Share:
| Liam Quinn wrote: |
| The STRONG element gives strong emphasis to its contents. Visual browsers typically render STRONG as bold text, but authors can suggest a rendering using style sheets. Since STRONG is a structural element, it carries meaning, making it preferable to font style elements such as B when strong emphasis is the intended meaning.
For weaker emphasis, use the EM element |
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| zcorpan wrote: |
| Mapping all <b> to <strong> without thinking isn't really a good idea. How do you know that "strong emphasis" (or importance) is the intended meaning everywhere <b> was used? It could equally well be something else, where <strong> would be inappropriate (and <b> less inappropriate). |
I looked at the site to and seen where <b> is used and it seems <strong> would do a better job (look at links page). <b> tag is for presentation and should be placed into CSS. This is required for AAA.
Johan De Silva / Portfolio
Share:
| Johan007 wrote: |
| I looked at the site to and seen where <b> is used and it seems <strong> would do a better job (look at links page). |
| Code: |
| <dl>
<dt><a href="http://www.disabledgo.info/">Disabled Go </a> <dd>Access information for disabled people <dt><a href="http://www.youreable.com">You're Able</a> <dd>Information, products and services for disabled people ... </dl> |
While we're at it, lets haunt for more occurances of <b> and see how it is used. On the start page we find:
| Code: |
| <BR>
<BR> <B>Patricia Froomberg, MBE</B><BR> Founder<BR> |
| Code: |
| <p><cite>Patricia Froomberg, MBE</cite><br>
Founder</p> |
I couldn't find any other occurances of <b> on the site.
Simon Pieters
Share:
| Code: |
| <LI><A HREF="index.php">Home</A><BR>
<BR></LI> |
| Code: |
| #navlinks li {
list-style-type:none; } |
| Code: |
| #navlinks li {
margin-bottom: 1em; list-style-type:none; } |
A Strict and up-to-date document type would help you identify other presentational markup. It will also put desktop browsers into a more W3C compliant mode, making interoperability of your CSS a bit easier.
Find this:
| Code: |
| <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
|
| Code: |
| <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> |
| Code: |
| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> |
You might consider delinking (or at least highlighting) any link which points to the current page to help users understand where they are. You might style a:visted links as a dark grey so users can see which pages they have already visited; again this aids navigation.
Also, you should include a:focus and a:active styling so that keyboard users can see which link they are currently at. Find this:
| Code: |
| A:hover {
color : red; text-decoration: none; font-size: 100% } |
| Code: |
| A:hover, A:active, A:focus {
color : red; text-decoration: none; font-size: 100% } |
Share:
| Johan007 wrote: |
| Automated tests are good starting point. I could put a Flash site up that would pass most automated tests.
|
Didn't you see the smiley?
I've even written an article about what was wrong with Bobby. As I said, it's only a check to make sure I haven't been a muppet somewhere rather than a be-all and end-all - might as well use it as it's there, but that's not the same as putting all my trust in it!
And yep - I've had people with Flash sites with no alternative content that couldn't understand why I was saying their site was inaccessible... because it seemed to pass ok. *sigh*
The rest is a useful list, thanks!
By the way, the code used above for "starting" was a bold tag; shouldn't it be <strong>? Not trying to be facetious but I'm trying to get my head around this discussion of the exact use of bold / strong / em etc.
Actually I think I was just trying to match exactly what the designer gave me - certain words in the graphic he gave me were bold - and hadn't considered if there is another tag which would be more appropriate. Thanks for that.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html suggests em should always be in italics, so my choice is bold or strong, and then I have to consider if strong emphasis is what I wanted.
Also, I'm sure I read that strong was deprecated; did I imagine this?
I'm doing an update to the site shortly, so I'll be sure to consider the points you have all made when I do it. Thanks!
Share:
| techiebabe wrote: |
|
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html suggests em should always be in italics, so my choice is bold or strong, and then I have to consider if strong emphasis is what I wanted. |
That's the HTML 2.0 spec, from 1995! Try the HTML 4.01 spec instead:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1
Okay, it's still 7 years old but it's the most up-to-date spec.
<em> will render in italics in really old browsers. Any recent browser will render it according to your stylesheet, so if you want bold for emphasis:
| Code: |
|
em { font-weight:bold; } |
Share:
| eatyourgreens wrote: |
|
That's the HTML 2.0 spec, from 1995! Try the HTML 4.01 spec instead: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1 Okay, it's still 7 years old but it's the most up-to-date spec. |
Damn Google! I found it when looking for the definitions of em/b/strong etc and then thought "oh yes, of course W3 will know"...
Next time I'll try looking direct on the W3 page, eh?
Share:
OK - so it still needs work on the accessibility side, but how about posting some reviews to make this a big and viable database?
Share:
I don't have a disability (AFAIK), so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to write about usability issues I find when using websites.
The accessibility is probably quite good in real devices with real users. The standards compliance and usage of markup elements is what most people here were criticising, from what I can tell.
The site seems like a great idea, though.
(EDIT) One thing I'd suggest is that you provide a way to navigate the reviews without having to search. For example, you could list them by date as an archive of messages, somewhat like a blog. Alternatively, you could arrange them as a list of titles archived by date, something like a Site Map or the way a forum area lists topics.
I think the blog-like method of organising and presenting reviews would be best. There was a site (which this forum reviewed) about illegal use of disabled parking bays. Members of the public could submit reports of this and they were presented somewhat like a blog. It seemed to worked well, but I can't find the site now!
Share: