break
Jan 14

Usually when people speak of disabilities and web accessibility, they talk of permanent problems surfing. This is not always the case.

About a year ago a member here had his PC die. For a while he was stuck surfing the web with his Wii. It was a wake up call and he said he would pay more attention to accessibility. It was temporary and bad from what he said.

Another example is myself. Not a speed typer, I am typing with one finger. It is raining here on packed snow, I slipped and broke my collar bone last night. So one arm is strapped to my chest and hurts like the devil, leaving me one finger and hand to type with. Luckily it was my left shoulder, so I can use the mouse still.

See, accessibility is not just about a minor group, it is about everyone and you can loose you PC or break a bone… what will you do then if most sites are inaccessible? Just do what you can and hope that others do the same.

Date January 14th, 2009 Filed in Accessibility No Comments »
Jan 14

On Sep. 25th 2008, President Bush signed an Ammendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that effectively redefines what is to be considered a disability.

Notice Concerning The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act Of 2008

On September 25, 2008, the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (”ADA Amendments Act” or “Act”). The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term “disability” by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC’s ADA regulations. The Act retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

  • directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits”;
  • expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists:
    • the first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating);
    • the second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
  • states that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
  • clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
  • provides that an individual subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire) because of an actual or perceived impairment will meet the “regarded as” definition of disability, unless the impairment is transitory and minor;
  • provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation; and
  • emphasizes that the definition of “disability” should be interpreted broadly.

EEOC will be evaluating the impact of these changes on its enforcement guidances and other publications addressing the ADA.

Effective Date: The ADA Amendments Act is effective as of January 1, 2009.
http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/amendments_notice.html

This can be very important to anyone with disabilities so please pass it on. This could overturn the VA’s rejection of my request for reevaluation. It may also redefine disabilities for web design.

Date January 14th, 2009 Filed in Accessibility No Comments »
Jan 14

The W3C are known for being vague, often due to trying to please everyone. This vagueness has caused issues in the past as developers understood the specs differently, a good example is IE’s showing of the alt attribute as a tooltip and all others browsers understanding it to be only visible when the image is not.

I have seen references before to the <address> tag and like all beginners did not look into it as it is clear isn’t it? You use it to create addresses. Well this is the web and the W3C and not everything is what it seems.

Here are two authorities on the subject:

[quote cite=” http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-ADDRESS”] The ADDRESS element may be used by authors to supply contact information for a document or a major part of a document such as a form. This element often appears at the beginning or end of a document. – W3C[/quote]

[quote cite=” http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_address.asp”] The <address> tag defines contact information for a document or a section.

Note: The <address> tag should NOT be used as describing a postal address, unless it is a part of the contact information. – W3Schools.com[/quote]

For me this is fairly clear, but not what I thought as a beginner. The address tag is not for addresses, it is for contact information about the author. If I post this in an ezine for instance, the author information about me with my email and or URL would be the address. I am the contact person and not the newsletter that posts this. KillerSites is not the contact when I post it on their forum. If you have questions, you contact me.

So if you use it for a street or postal address you are clearly wrong.

Or are you?

In a comment section at a SimpleBits’ SimpleQuiz from 2004 (http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/08/04/sq.html), some very good comments are to be found (126 in all, but good reading). It became and issue of how best to markup physical addresses and rather than people saying A, B, C or D, may began tweaking the offered solutions.

Comments here are long closed, I was dismayed that it took almost half the comments before someone pointed out the semantics of Address as many were stating simply “A is correct because that is what the tag is there for.” Well no, no it isn’t, read the specs. It is the contact information on the author. So name, email, URL and such.

Some posters blatantly ignore this but towards the bottom more and more reference it and some begin to point out other ways of seeing it than what I know to be the meaning of Address.

Now the easy to understand has become vague indeed. Let us look again, this time with my highlights:

[quote cite=” http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-ADDRESS”] The ADDRESS element may be used by authors to supply contact information for a document or a major part of a document such as a form. This element often appears at the beginning or end of a document. – W3C[/quote]

Are you seeing what I missed and others saw?

Once again by generously using their favorite word, “may,” the W3C’s use of it opens the definition to be used and abused in many ways aside from it’s intended use.

Also look at it from a corporate point of view. We looked earlier at me as the author. Now let’s say it is a page on a corporate web site. Who is the “contact information for a document or a major part of a document?”

It depends, but it would be either a division or department or the corporation as a whole. So if I have a question or issue with the content who is my contact person? Likely the Public Affairs people for the corporation. How would I contact them? URL and email of course as before, but I may wish to send a letter. Now suddenly a postal address or street address I can visit to speak to someone in person is now fitting snuggly in the definition, especially with that “may” thrown in. A local part of a nationwide chain would not be the owner so the corporate headquarters would be the owner.

Personally, I find that stretching it as this tag is really meant to be directly on each page. So I do not agree with the full address use of the tag, To use it on one page to represent ownership and responsibility for an entire site is not in the spec. The spec clearly states it is “for a document or a major part of a document,” meaning singular, as under this theory you need to place the physical address of the company on every page. But I must admit that I can not hotly dispute it because in theory, even stretched theory they are partly right at least and you can liken a web site to a document, like a brochure of many pages.

Another repeated argument is that telephone numbers should not be included, they are not part of the address (usually meaning physical address), but they are however “contact information for a document or a major part of a document” and by that definition better candidates for the address tag than a complete physical or postal address.

So the <address> tag turns out to be not so simple after all. Like a Mirror you identify way off, when you take a closer look it is a funhouse mirror and depending on what angle you look at the specs for address… it means different things to different people and warps to be seen however you wish to use it like a funhouse mirror warping your reflection depending on the angle you see it. With W3C specs, things are not always what they seem.

Date January 14th, 2009 Filed in Uncategorized 1 Comment »