WCAG-AAA
from my site article The Web Chemist And The Holy Grail: Triple-A Accessibility
| Quote: |
| The Triple-A level of Accessibility, as defined by WCAG has long been considered a Holy Grail - something to strive for but virtually impossible to achieve. However, with my new site design, now powered by WordPress and using a modified version of Mike Cherim’s Seabeast theme, I’ve achieved just that.
I’ll say it again: this site is accessible to the triple-A standard. Want to know more? |
A couple of minor hiccups have been found and corrected (or removed from the scope of the claim until I've fixed them). Nonetheless the principle remains - Triple-A.
Who wants to argue with me first?
I'm aware that by going public with this I'm in danger of being shot down, but I do genuinely think I've got there. Not that I'm not claiming that the site is perfect: it isn't. All I'm claiming is that Triple-A.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share: 
| Quote: |
| Who wants to argue with me first? |
I wouldn't want to argue with you or anyone
So how about an observation ?????
Skip links work great ...... but the black on dark purple is some what hard for me to read ....... at colour difference 238 brightness 42
........ might be worth a look at ?
Hazel
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| 1.3.4
Do not provide meaning through presentation unless this is coupled with semantic meaning. This basically means that you shouldn’t use strictly presentational elements such as <i> to generate italics or emphasis or <b> to embolden something to strengthen the importance of a word or phrase — you should instead use the emphasis (<em>) and strong (<strong>) elements to provide semantic meaning and style these elements appropriately. Also, items in a list should be found in a semantic list to give the list meaning and so on. This site does not provide meaning other than through the semantic use of elements. |
I think it's saying do not provide decorative effects through semantic elements or words to that effect. Your site still seems to pass this, though.
However, in some places you've got bits of code which aren't enclosed in <code> tags. Also, some of your paragraphs aren't in seperate <p> tags. That means you aren't providing the richest possible semantics to user agents, but WCAG 2.0 doesn't seem to mind that?
| Code: |
| <link rel="alternate stylesheet" href="http://www.thepickards.co.uk/wp-content/themes/seabeast/portable.css" type="text/css" media="handheld, screen" title="“SeaBeast” v.1.2 Portable by Mike Cherim" /> |
| Code: |
| <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.thepickards.co.uk/wp-content/themes/seabeast/portable.css" type="text/css" media="handheld" title="“SeaBeast” v.1.2 Portable by Mike Cherim" /> |
| JackP wrote: |
| 2.2.1 Provide options to swithc off, adjust or delay any timeouts in the content. |
Apart from some niggles like this which have little effect on accessibility (although proper use of <p> might), I'd agree that this passes WCAG 2.0 AAA. I'm not an expert on WCAG 2.0, though!
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| I think it's saying do not provide decorative effects through semantic elements or words to that effect. |
I was saying italics "for emphasis" and embolden "to strengthen" which pretty much are what em and strong would be doing semantically..
| Quote: |
| However, in some places you've got bits of code which aren't enclosed in <code> tags. |
| Code: |
| <span lang="fr">s'il vous plait</span> |
| Hazey wrote: |
| but the black on dark purple is some what hard for me to read... |
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Well, WCAG 2.0 (need we say more) 
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| Robert Wellock wrote: |
| Well, WCAG 2.0 (need we say more) |
ah, you're only jealous 'cos I got there first
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
I don't know; the guy in the white coat looks like me on the rollover. I'll give you credit though for showing how WCAG 2.0 is a bizarre creation.};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
I don't think saying <span> or <strong> is code, it's just telling you the element to use, it's not a code example. An actual example such as
|
I'm one that disagrees. They are tag elements; small pieces of a code language. There's no minimum on what qualifies as code. If it's code, it's code, so should be marked up as such.
You're telling people which 'code' elements to use including syntactical characters ( < and > ) which have no meaning outside of their relevance to that code language.
You might get away with not marking it up as code if you mentioned only the tag name itself (i.e. without < and >), but by including < and >, you represent actual code.
(I personally try to markup all references to code as code, whether that be a protracted passage of code or simply a reference to an element or attribute name [with or without syntactical characters].)
Share:
| Bill Posters wrote: |
| You might get away with not marking it up as code if you mentioned only the tag name itself (i.e. without < and >), but by including < and >, you represent actual code. |
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. I'll try and do that from now on.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
|
| W3C wrote: |
| CODE:
Designates a fragment of computer code. (Source: HTML 4 Spec: Phrase Elements.) |
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| I havn't seen <span> or <strong> listed in the dictionary on the page before Aardvark! |
ah, but have you checked my glossary? (no, they're not in there - see my response to Bill!)
The w3C seem to use Bill's method - not to use the <> but not to <code> it .. examples from http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html
| Quote: |
| Visual user agents generally render BLOCKQUOTE as an indented block |
| Code: |
| <p>Visual user agents generally render <a href="text.html#edef-BLOCKQUOTE"
class="noxref"><samp class="einst">BLOCKQUOTE</samp></a> as an indented block.</p> |
... no sign of a 'code' element there.
Having said that, there's no sign of a code element HERE either:
| Quote: |
| John said, <Q lang="en-us">I saw Lucy at lunch, she told me
<Q lang="en-us">Mary wants you to get some ice cream on your way home.</Q> I think I will get some at Ben and Jerry's, on Gloucester Road.</Q> |
| Code: |
| <pre>
John said, <Q lang="en-us">I saw Lucy at lunch, she told me <Q lang="en-us">Mary wants you to get some ice cream on your way home.</Q> I think I will get some at Ben and Jerry's, on Gloucester Road.</Q> </pre> |
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Last edited by JackP on 10 Jul 2006 01:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Share:
I couldn't find a reference to your baseline? Might have missed it. I guess it's not 'flash only' 
Kevin
Share:
| KLewis wrote: |
| I couldn't find a reference to your baseline? Might have missed it. I guess it's not 'flash only' |
Baseline's on here http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/accessibility/ along with other gubbins.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. I'll try and do that from now on. |
For example:
| Code: |
| <p>I would suggest using a <code>strong</code> element.</p> |
| Code: |
| <p>I would suggest using a strong element.</p> |
W3C sometimes publish badly made pages, especially ones from the 20th Century.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: | ||||
|
Surely just changing 'a' to 'the' would remove the ambiguity?
| Code: |
| <p>I would suggest using the strong element.</p> |
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share: