Re: For your perusal

Oh boy, Rob, you did what I won't face yet. Did you take a look at it in
Netscape 4.5? --totally destroyed. Since there are still so many people
using that old thing, is that a way you'd like your business represented? I
think I will be sticking with tables for layout until old Netscape finally
finds a rest somewhere.

It states in the Priority 2 Checkpoints for accessible content:

"5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when
linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an
alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version)."

"5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the
purpose of visual formatting."

In the Priority 3 Checkpoints it states:

"AND IF YOU USE TABLES

5.5 Provide summaries for tables.
5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels.
10.3 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render
side-by-side text correctly, provide a linear text alternative (on current
page or some other) for ALL tables that lay out text in parallel,
word-wrapped columns."

I find it helpful to check sites with table layout in a "talking" browser
known as: "IBM Home Page Reader." You'd be surprised that some sites with
table layout read just fine.

At this point, I'm afraid to use CSS for positioning until I see more
consistency in its cross browser support. If I can't work it out with a
table, I'll use an alternative text equivalent page.

Lauren --buuuuuk, buuk, buuk, buuk, buuk...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Atkinson" <robatkinson(at)nucleus.com>
To: "hwg-business" <hwg-business(at)mail.hwg.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: For your perusal


> I invite everyone to visit: http://etanow.com/ and have a look at
> my first Tableless code. By all means, rip it apart and if
> needed, let me have it with both barrels. Don't let the URL throw
> you (it's a spare of mine) as this will be the new look for my
> main site, PotentProducts.com. Note that only the 4 buttons up
> top & the first image, are working links. More work to do of
> course, but this is the general over-all layout.
>
> Although the Standards are met for XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS
> (htmlhelp.com doesn't like 'html>body' though?) I have found this
> very challenging to bring the coding up to (what I think) Triple
> A Accessibility Standards.
>
> Can someone explain to me why Bobby says:
>    "Separate adjacent links with more than whitespace."
> about links like this:
>    [Navigation] [Directories] [This Dir Menu]
>
> Says the same thing about image links using a <br> which I don't
> particularly agree with either. Mind you, I have yet to use a
> Speech Reader myself and am going by what I learned through book
> reading and online examples.
>
> Do we assign our "own" level of Accessibility if programs like
> Bobby do not apply common sense or do Reader programs truly have
> problems with links as listed above?
>
> Except for the "whitespace" problem I have coding (Tableless
> even!!!) that meets with Triple A requirements. Would love to be
> able to mention that and would truly appreciate, anyone using a
> Reader Program to "tell it like it is."
>
> All comments welcome and appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Website Rob
> Sitemaster at
> http://www.PotentProducts.com
> ------------------------------------------
> Helping people create a Potent Web Site
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-business mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA