> In article <46beaa17$0$22610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, addinall@addinall.org writes...
>
>
>>"Tim" optushome.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:46762F31.7000102@optushome.com.au...
>>
>>>What is the difference between billboards and the web? The 1992 Disability
>>>Discrimination Act applies to websites following Maguire v SOCOG. Website
>>>accessibility relates to ramps on buildings for disabled wheelchair access
>>>and importantly for commercial organisations to Search Engine
>>>Optimisation, with valid code robots can easily index all your sites
>>>content. Your page only has minor html errors nothimg to stop a search
>>>engine, but it will fail every accessibility test.
>>>
>>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%%3A%%2F%%2Fwww.fcq.com.au%%2F
>>>
>>>I can see from your text size options on www.fcq.com.au that you are
>>>serious about accessibility, well done, but try not to shoot the messenger
>>>(Duh:-) who exposes errors in major University homepages, they should know
>>>better. The only Australian site to embed a flash file in the homepage was
>>>Bond University and it is totally inaccessible to a blind person using
>>>only a keyboard to navigate a site without Javascript and the Macromedia
>>>plugin for Flash files.
>>>
>>>You could not have read the entire text unless you viewed the page
>>>frequently (updated often) and also viewed the source code, but seeing as
>>>you used Microsoft FrontPage 5.0 to make your webpages, you might not
>>>appreciate what the html coding means? You pages could do with a lot more
>>>header tags, more keywords for search engines.
>>>
>>>You are not being forced into it unless someone takes action against you
>>>under the 1992 Act, but you are not a university offering IT courses
>>>either.
>>>
>>>You also need to use a
>>
>>I'm glad to see Deakin passed. I did a lot of the accessibility work on
>>those pages. When I left every page passed using the Bobby tool.
>>I'm not familiar with "cynthis".
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Mark Addinall.
>>
>>
>>>>>Taking a look a one paragraph is inadequate, you are not correct to do an
>>>>>and then evaluate a large body of work based on one paragraph, you would
>>>>>have answers to other questions if you did look further.
>>>>>Your two cents worth is not good value. Non judgmental language like
>>>>>"Dur" to you too David, standarsd are not specified by me but then you
>>>>>did not bother to find out what they were before replying, Dur
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I did actually read the entire text, but I thought it would be
>>>>enlightening to focus on a small part of it.
>>>>
>>>>I deliberately used provocative language (dur) within my reply to get you
>>>>thinking about the provocative language in your own text.
>>>>
>>>>If you feel 2c is too much to pay for my advice, feel free to pay in
>>>>cash.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you so interested in web site useability anyway?
>>>>What is so different about websites that does not also apply to
>>>>billboards, newspapers, paintings and pamphlets?
>>>>
>>>>This is a serious question. Although I spend a fair bit of effort trying
>>>>to make my own websites accessible, I'd probably spit the dummy and do
>>>>them all in Flash if someone tried to force me into it.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look at a site I did at
>>>>www.fcq.com.au
>>>>
>>>>There is a Flash animation on that page with no alt-tag.
>>>>What do you suggest I do to make the animation accessible to blind
>>>>people? Look at the animation carefully and think about the imagery and
>>>>the way it is targeted at the feelings and emotions of those who view it.
>>>>If a picture paints a thousand words, a Flash screen movie may require an
>>>>entire book. How big should the alt-tag be to convey the same information
>>>>to a blind person as a sighted person extracts in the few seconds it pans
>>>>across the scene?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
is not a valid tag", or "height is
> not a valid attribute". I'm afraid I don't believe it.
>
> Certainly I could probably pay more attention to the alt tags on some of
> my images, but others are mnemonic icons that have explanatory text next
> to them. They are designed to help sighted people only and are an
> unnecessary distraction to visually impaired people.
>
> Finally, although it may appear I use Frontpage to design the site,
> behind the scenes a lot of what you see in the source code is straight
> from PHP. The header, the left and right columns and the footer are all
> generated by PHP scripts that are wrapped inside a Frontpage generated
> shell. A look at the source code will show things like:
>
>
>
> and strange stuff like that. The idea is that people with little
> training can maintain the site using intuitive tools like Frontpage, but
> the look, feel and accessibility of the site is maintained
> automatically.
>
> In fact you could say the way I wrote the fcq site raises accessibility
> to another level by allowing people without special web authoring skills
> to maintain the site.
>
> The idea is that when I am finished with the site design, they won't
> need me any more. Not good from an entrepreneurial viewpoint I know, but
> thats probably why I'm not rich.
>
is not a valid tag height is
not a valid attribute" Centre is depreciated html and can now be in the
stylesheets rules, height is depreciated except for images.
I'm not rich either. Automatic tools to make webpages are improving but
many still do not produce valid code, it may look fine but validation is
more for webbots to navigate the page than humans.