Comments on: Standards-wielding maniacs http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/ A pragmatic approach to web standards and accessibility Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:14:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Pete http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/#comment-69 Pete Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:41:21 +0000 http://localhost:8888/?p=3#comment-69 <p>Joe, you are still talking about <em>displaying</em> elements. Please have a look at this <a href="/exhibits/lynx/lynxelements.GIF">Lynx screenshot</a>. As you can see Lynx has no problem displaying the elements. However, it does not communicate their meaning despite the proper markup.</p> <p>Other user agents typically work the same way. Calling them deficient does not change the way they work.</p> <p>Jaws is the most widely used screen reader. This is a fact and should be taken into consideration when designing web sites just like you sometimes have to design specifically for Internet Explorer.</p> Joe, you are still talking about displaying elements. Please have a look at this Lynx screenshot. As you can see Lynx has no problem displaying the elements. However, it does not communicate their meaning despite the proper markup.

Other user agents typically work the same way. Calling them deficient does not change the way they work.

Jaws is the most widely used screen reader. This is a fact and should be taken into consideration when designing web sites just like you sometimes have to design specifically for Internet Explorer.

]]> By: Joe Clark http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/#comment-65 Joe Clark Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:05:39 +0000 http://localhost:8888/?p=3#comment-65 <p>Lynx renders the elements you mentioned. The other user agents, if they ignore them, are deficient. We know that Jaws has a lot of work to do to support basic HTML.</p> <p>Typical Braille displays are driven by screen readers, not terminal-mode browsers like Lynx.</p> Lynx renders the elements you mentioned. The other user agents, if they ignore them, are deficient. We know that Jaws has a lot of work to do to support basic HTML.

Typical Braille displays are driven by screen readers, not terminal-mode browsers like Lynx.

]]> By: Pete http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/#comment-55 Pete Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:49:52 +0000 http://localhost:8888/?p=3#comment-55 <p>Joe, thank you for your comment.</p> <p>In the article I am talking about browser <em>devices</em> and how they <em>interpret</em> elements. I agree that most browsers have no problem <em>displaying</em> the bulk of xhtml elements, but take for example the following elements:</p><code>dfn, cite, address, kbd, var</code><br/><p>What device do you know of thet interprets them and informs the user of their meaning? Jaws, IBM Home Page Reader and Lynx (many braille terminals use Lynx for rendering) ignore them. Who benefits from that markup?</p> <p>The point I am trying to get across is that you should consider how you prioritize your information development efforts. In my opinion there is an unhealthy tendency towards overemphasizing the importance of W3C validator compliance compared to the basics of information publishing such as having a decent CMS and an organization that makes sure information is published to the web. </p> <p>Do not get me wrong. I am all for following the W3C recommendations. But there are many things that have a higher priority if you want to get the biggest bang for your accessibility budget. </p> <p>Regarding claims from standardistas my experience differs from yours. </p> Joe, thank you for your comment.

In the article I am talking about browser devices and how they interpret elements. I agree that most browsers have no problem displaying the bulk of xhtml elements, but take for example the following elements:

dfn, cite, address, kbd, var

What device do you know of thet interprets them and informs the user of their meaning? Jaws, IBM Home Page Reader and Lynx (many braille terminals use Lynx for rendering) ignore them. Who benefits from that markup?

The point I am trying to get across is that you should consider how you prioritize your information development efforts. In my opinion there is an unhealthy tendency towards overemphasizing the importance of W3C validator compliance compared to the basics of information publishing such as having a decent CMS and an organization that makes sure information is published to the web.

Do not get me wrong. I am all for following the W3C recommendations. But there are many things that have a higher priority if you want to get the biggest bang for your accessibility budget.

Regarding claims from standardistas my experience differs from yours.

]]> By: Joe Clark http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/#comment-53 Joe Clark Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:13:20 +0000 http://localhost:8888/?p=3#comment-53 <p>I'm not aware of a single HTML element that no browser can render. If you're referring to obscurantisms like dir or summary on table or hreflang, then perhaps yes. However, I interpret any claim that browsers do not understand such attributes as really meaning that IE6 on Windows doesn't.</p> <p>I don't see the value of this article at all except as another futile and readily-refuted instance of a claim that standards don't matter. Merely as a starting point, you can have a page that passes WCAG Priority 1 with invalid code, but I rather doubt it will actually be accessible to a screen-reader user. Meanwhile, a deaf person might have no trouble at all. The entire discussion is *contingent*, you see. There are many complicating factors.</p> <p>I'm not convinced that any informed accessibilitista or standardista would make the claim that the mere adherence to standards guarantees you anything. It is, however, a prerequisite for many things.</p> I’m not aware of a single HTML element that no browser can render. If you’re referring to obscurantisms like dir or summary on table or hreflang, then perhaps yes. However, I interpret any claim that browsers do not understand such attributes as really meaning that IE6 on Windows doesn’t.

I don’t see the value of this article at all except as another futile and readily-refuted instance of a claim that standards don’t matter. Merely as a starting point, you can have a page that passes WCAG Priority 1 with invalid code, but I rather doubt it will actually be accessible to a screen-reader user. Meanwhile, a deaf person might have no trouble at all. The entire discussion is *contingent*, you see. There are many complicating factors.

I’m not convinced that any informed accessibilitista or standardista would make the claim that the mere adherence to standards guarantees you anything. It is, however, a prerequisite for many things.

]]> By: Stefan Magdalinski http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/standards-wielding-maniacs/#comment-31 Stefan Magdalinski Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:51:26 +0000 http://localhost:8888/?p=3#comment-31 <p>A couple of years ago, I got a screen reader user to make a tape of his browsing experience on http://www.upmystreet.com and then published the results as mp3.</p> <p>http://www.whitelabel.org/archives/000332.html</p> <p>I think the fangs may be the most useful tool I've seen in a long long while. Well done.</p> A couple of years ago, I got a screen reader user to make a tape of his browsing experience on http://www.upmystreet.com and then published the results as mp3.

http://www.whitelabel.org/archives/000332.html

I think the fangs may be the most useful tool I’ve seen in a long long while. Well done.

]]>