Empire Hotel (And All That Malarkey)
Home / Site Critiques / Empire Hotel (And All That Malarkey)
Is the problem here the badges themselves or the concept of boasting standards compliance as part of the content? Many sites just have specific details of how they were constructed in the colophon/about site, and similarly, many potential customers don't read the colophon/about site. They may, however, be drawn towards a confusing little button saying "W3C WAI", click on it, and be taken to confusing big pages.
(I'm think more along the lines of web design/development promotion sites rather than client sites here, it should be said - in these cases, why not flaunt your skills and ideologies?)
_________________
Kajun
Share: 
First of all, sorry about the tone of my last post, which could be seen as if I was annoyed. I wasn't, I was just in a hurry because I was leaving work. 
| KLewis wrote: |
What, all of them?  I think we'll agree to differ though I do see your point |
That depends on how accessible you want your site to be. If you want to reach as many as possible then yes, you might have to include all of them. Plus translations into a couple hundred languages ...
| feather wrote: |
| Tommy -- you mentioned that the link to validate is useful for checking other sites. Does that mean you aren't using a browser where you've got some type of toolbar or even keystroke that will let you validate? (it is a serious question - I'm curious...) |
I use Mozilla, but I don't use any toolbars. I know I could easly write a favelet for validation, but a link on the site enables anyone to check my claims on validity. And the link to the validator is bookmarked anyway.
Validation of (X)HTML and CSS is non-ambiguous. It either passes or it doesn't, and there's no room for interpretation. Therefore I don't mind links to those validators. I personally don't use 'badges' but that's a strictly personal choice and it's not like I 'condemn' those who like them.
But accessibilty can never be fully machine-validated. It needs the good ol' mk 1 eyeball. Therefore such badges are much less useful. And if one still wants them, one should make darned sure that one can live up to one's claims.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
(sniff) But I like badges... (sob)... Please let me have a badge Mr Toolman (sniff)
Nice posts over at Tommy blog (http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/...)... watch out for a follow up on And All That Malarkey (http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk).
(And the best comment wins a free weekend at the Empire Hotel (Ulan Bator)... on us*. But you'll have to pay your own travel.
* Judges decision is final. All entrants must be over 75 and accompanied by both Grandparents (no turtles).
_________________
Stuff I do
******************************
Design: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
My book: http://www.transcendingcss.com/
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: |
| I use Mozilla, but I don't use any toolbars. I know I could easly write a favelet for validation, but a link on the site enables anyone to check my claims on validity. |
I guess my point then, is this: most people who care about validation of pages already have a mechanism by which they can easily validate the pages. I was aiming to get at the crux of the issue - do people include them for themselves, or for others? If I see a site and I want to validate it, Ctrl+Shift + V does the job just fine, and I don't need the link. Wouldn't most people that want to validate your HTML have similar functionality, either through a bookmarklet, or one of many toolbars? (also, I'm a little surprised you haven't got some of the toolbars installed -- what, are you in the dark ages or something !!?!?!
)
| TOOLman wrote: |
| But accessibilty can never be fully machine-validated. It needs the good ol' mk 1 eyeball. Therefore such badges are much less useful. And if one still wants them, one should make darned sure that one can live up to one's claims. |
Agreed -- and even if you make the claim and "pass" you still can't guarantee accessibility anyway -- which is generally why I don't ever make any claims to pass a certain level on any of the sites I build. If anything, I'd rather see them in an about page like Andy generally uses.
BTW -- John and I were talking about this very issue once in terms of accessibility "conformance" and the problems with what a claim of "AA" etc means... Here is what we came up with on the issue...
Accountability in Accessibility Testing
Cheers,
feather.
_________________
Derek Featherstone
simplyaccessible.com | furtherAhead.com | BoxofChocolates.ca
Share:
| feather wrote: |
| which is generally why I don't ever make any claims to pass a certain level on any of the sites I build |
on my work site, i've worded it cautiously
| Quote: |
|
All pages on this site aim to be accessible to WAI WCAG AA or better, complying with priority 1 and 2 guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as interpreted by the University's Web Team |
(emphasis added)
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| redux wrote: | ||
on my work site, i've worded it cautiously
|
Indeed a good strategy... I guess what it comes down to for many of us (here on the forums anyway) is that its just as important to aim for accessibility as it is to attain it. We understand accessibility (the best we can anyways) and are aiming to make our sites as accessible as possible.
It isn't that I'm trying to say AA, or AAA conformance isn't a worthy goal -- but, it is just that - a goal. Whether or not we are able to reach it is up to interpretation (as this thread clearly indicates!). I really like that last statement you've used on the Uni's site Patrick: "as interpreted by the University's Web Team". I think I'll be taking that and modifying it for my own use...
_________________
Derek Featherstone
simplyaccessible.com | furtherAhead.com | BoxofChocolates.ca
Share:
| Kajun wrote: |
| They may, however, be drawn towards a confusing little button saying "W3C WAI", click on it, and be taken to confusing big pages. |
In which case, wouldn't it be better to keep them on your own site and explain what the little badges mean rather than take them away to a document that will just confuse?
_________________
Derek Featherstone
simplyaccessible.com | furtherAhead.com | BoxofChocolates.ca
Share:
| feather wrote: |
| I really like that last statement you've used on the Uni's site Patrick: "as interpreted by the University's Web Team". I think I'll be taking that and modifying it for my own use... |
of course, mate. i call it our "let's cover our a**" clause
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
Hi Malarkey (and everyone else)
I had a look at the site. Very nice, as usual
It reminds me of the old Vaudville theatre look...with a twist. That's just me, I guess
This is the first Flash that I've seen of yours. Since I've dabbled a bit myself, I thought I'd give you some feedback.
In Firefox, there is this weird flashing going on with the toolbar as the Flash movie loads. Once the movie loads, it's fine though, so I don't know if it's a major concern.
Also, just a tip so that people who right-click on the movie don't get all the options of Zoom In, Zoom Out, Quality, etc. Simply put this ActionScript in the first frame of the movie in any level;
| Code: |
| Stage.showMenu = false; |
That disables all those options. All the user will see is 'Settings' and 'About'.
Again, very nice as usual
_________________
Crazy Bat Designs
Home of the phpBB WASO
Helping you reach the most people possible.
Share:
| feather wrote: |
| I guess my point then, is this: most people who care about validation of pages already have a mechanism by which they can easily validate the pages. I was aiming to get at the crux of the issue - do people include them for themselves, or for others? If I see a site and I want to validate it, Ctrl+Shift + V does the job just fine, and I don't need the link. Wouldn't most people that want to validate your HTML have similar functionality, either through a bookmarklet, or one of many toolbars? (also, I'm a little surprised you haven't got some of the toolbars installed -- what, are you in the dark ages or something !!?!?! ) |
Yes, we've just got running water and that electricity thang up here.
Opera has a built-in command for validating a page, but IIRC it doesn't use the W3C validator.
Anyway, I can remove the validation links from my weblog if it really bothers you that much.
<onTopic>I didn't realise there was a Flash object on your site, Andy. I've thrown that piece of **** out. But since the site works and looks good anyway, I'd say you've covered the accessibility part of that very well.</onTopic>
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
Thanks Batman
The Flash slideshow is from What Do I know? although the xhml has been altered to ensure it validates. The page also offers an image (with alt) AND a text alternative. See the source code if you're interested.
For some up to date thoughts on badges etc. following this topic, see http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/... and Tommy's blog.
_________________
Stuff I do
******************************
Design: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
My book: http://www.transcendingcss.com/
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: | ||
That depends on how accessible you want your site to be. If you want to reach as many as possible then yes, you might have to include all of them. Plus translations into a couple hundred languages ... |
Maybe that's why I take the lesser view.
AAA is a myth. Why am I thinking of Medusa? When you see the true horror of what is before you, you turn to stone...
Badges? I don't trust them. When I see them I check to see if the truth is being told. I rather see a nicely worded statement as redux has done.
Cheers
Kevin
Share:
I am above 75 months of age so I might just qualify though really I am too busy to write something motivating._________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| KLewis wrote: |
| AAA is a myth. Why am I thinking of Medusa? When you see the true horror of what is before you, you turn to stone... |
We have to learn to find the appropriate level of accessibility depending on our intended target audience.
For a commercial site it's basicly up to the owner. We can't force anyone to be accessible. Yes, there are anti-discrimination laws, but they're probably too rigid to work in all cases.
For government sites and other public information sites, it's different. This information must be accessible to 'all' citizens (who are on-line).
Not satisfying 14.2 doesn't mean the site is inaccessible. It's a priority 3 checkpoint. I'm not saying that all sites should be AAA, I'm just saying that those that aren't shouldn't purport to be.
_________________
Tommy has left the building
Share:
| Malarkey wrote: |
| Thanks Batman
The Flash slideshow is from What Do I know? although the xhml has been altered to ensure it validates. The page also offers an image (with alt) AND a text alternative. See the source code if you're interested. For some up to date thoughts on badges etc. following this topic, see http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/... and Tommy's blog. |
No worries.
I too have had to change my xhtml to conform Flash for page validation. I use almost the same method, except I use a container movie and then have my main movie read through the path. Sort of like so...
| Code: |
|
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="flash/c.swf?path=flash/home.swf" width="585" height="450"> <param name="movie" value="flash/c.swf?path=flash/home.swf" /> <img src="gfx/noflash.gif" alt="No Flash Plugin detected." title="No Flash Plugin detected" width="400" height="400" /> |
And yes, I did notice this thread and Tommy's post on badges. I changed the wording on my site to basically say that 'I strive to achieve WAI-AA', but I want to have a closer look at the artices you pointed out to have a more educated look at the whole matter.
But yeah....I have seen too many sites boasting AAA improperly.
_________________
Crazy Bat Designs
Home of the phpBB WASO
Helping you reach the most people possible.
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum