Comments on: When Accessibility is Not Your Problem

By: wendy

wendy — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:55:44 +0000

the more we coddle the browsers with hacks and workarounds the longer it will take them to get their asses into gear because we sweetly make them look good to the people who pay for the licenses etc - im not saying i don't do it but i do see a good reason to refuse

By: Paulio

Paulio — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:01:59 +0000

The whole issue of who is to blame or rather who should have the responsibility is a very tricky one. I have a lot of sympathy with the “blame the browser” stance but obviously you can’t simply say to a client, “tough luck it doesn’t work, if you want to use the site get a new browser”. Then again, the more you pander to the problem browser the longer they won’t fix the problems, like I said tricky. I mention this because I think it is relevant to your question about link texts. I believe the point made in the session was that you can derive the context from the hierarchy and therefore shouldn’t have to duplicate the text. Whereas I believe your argument is that this is nice in principle but the the readers don’t utilise the context? Again, who’s responsibility is it?

By: Martin Kliehm

Martin Kliehm — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:18:27 +0000

Tomas, could you elaborate a little? Does that mean that in your opinion all link texts pointing to the same URL have to be identical, or does that mean you think we don't need to care?

By: Tomas Caspers

Tomas Caspers — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:41:36 +0000

in Germany there is a consensus

Just for the sake of accuracy, as this would include me: −1

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:42:26 +0000

When the notes are published, you will find that I never said pixel units causing unresizability is not a problem. I said that critics are constantly on our case about px units, that they pick on standardistas who occasionally use it, and that they don't pick on the real offenders (the kind of people who also use 37 tables for layout). I explained that px is a relative unit and we may use any unit to size anything. IE6 and IE7 are broken. But the actual semantics of the pixel unit rarely come up for standards-compliant developers — maybe only in a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. They are scarcely ever used.

The central point is that font resizing is a browser issue, not something that an â€œauthorâ€? has to worry about. So donâ€™t be ginning up your own JavaScript font-resizers. And I specifically stated that font resizing is not an issue of â€œclassicâ€? accessibility for people with a visual handicap (as opposed to someone, including a senior citizen, with a correctable vision loss).

So bravo for accuracy there.

You arenâ€™t â€œceas[ing] to supportâ€? lists of links by writing link text that actually works and makes sense in your document. You just can’t have both: Your link text either works in context or it doesn't. Same for headlines. So let's not pretend that a list of headings or links is any form of guidance on how to write link or headline text.

And, finally, I specifically and unambiguously stated that HTML semantics should be followed. abbr and acronym should be used, but expansions should be limited to cases where a reasonable reader would misunderstand something — hence, no, you wouldn't expand â€œE. coliâ€? on a public-health site.

So again, bravo on the accuracy there.

The artist who drew sketches of the various speakers is a buxom blonde woman. Une fois encore, bravo.

You could have come and said hello. Tomorrow you still could.

By: Martin Kliehm

Martin Kliehm — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:29:15 +0000

Right, IE6 and IE7 are broken, but it is our responsibility to enable resizing. Of course standardistas rarely use px units, but most indecent developers do. As long as IE is broken, they need to be educated about em units.

In the discussion about link texts in Germany there is a consensus that they can differ as long as the title clarifies the link target. However, creative headlines might have a literary value, but they do not enhance readability or understandability for cognitive disabled users. I prefer headlines that do make some sense apart from adding visual structure.

Sorry for any inaccuracies, but that’s how I and other people I have spoken to interpreted your talk. I couldn’t check your presentation first because it was (and still is) not online. Of course I will say hello tomorrow. Still the original scetch was from a guy, his female designer colleague made a copy of it.