Phillip Whiteside phillw at
Wed Jun 23 03:17:24 BST 2010


Yeah, I can code it so they have 12 digit random characters attached, the
generation of the table headings and summaries is done via php interrogating
the MySQL database, they will always be the same, however php can do random

$this_is_silly= rand()

echo " <a class = 'N' title='M.G. Judd Part
$this_is_silly= rand()
echo " <a class = 'N' title='Original Engineers Manufacturing Number


Seems a real stupid way of doing things to me, but if it keeps the robots
happy I'll do it provided the screen readers are okay with it.


On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Bob Trevithick <bob.trevithick at>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Phillip Whiteside <phillw at>
> wrote:
> > The bounces are most likely caused by me using my default email account
> > (vpolink) and not my one
> I think the bounce said it was because I sent a note to a mailing list
> that I am not a member of.  Whoops. :)
> > The link on each part is the same?
> > MGJudd Part No. = F0332
> > OEM Part No. = 4223 140 1800
> > The database number for them is 1451 on the database. So, the link is the
> > same.
> Oh, I completely understand why you're doing it.  It makes perfect
> sense.  It is, however, a violation of one of the accessibility rules.
>  That's all I'm saying. :)
> > Think of it this way, you require a part and you do not know the original
> > part number, and you get dropped onto the mgjudd site,
> > seems unlikely? Try putting in "ts400 parts illustrated" into google you
> > will find the site there (no, I do not pay for it, I just want to make it
> > okay for people and the google bot seems to like what I am doing).
> I did that, and TV then analyzed the page and found 35 E898 Level 'A'
> errors.  Well, really it's just 35 instances of the same error.
> > In my case, they will hear the MGJudd part number and the OEM part
> number,
> > they are the same part and therefore have only one entry on the database.
> > Does that make sense?
> I completely understand, and your method makes perfect sense.  It just
> doesn't validate.  If there were a way to make those titles unique,
> you'd be all set.  Like, perhaps number them, or do anything so you
> don't fall into the trap of having different titles, which the screen
> reader will pronounce, all leading to the same location.
> I'm just saying what TV says about it.  I ran into the same problem
> with pages of my own way back when, and it took me a while to
> understand what the issue was.  It's probably a mere technicality in
> this case, which having a screen reader user look at the pages would
> tell us.  Or it might actually present a problem sometimes but not
> others.  It would be interesting to see if it's really an issue in
> this particular case.
> Not a biggy, in any event, Phill.. so don't let it bum you out.  It's
> just a minor niggle.  A technical violation, which we should be able
> to figure out some way around with a little thought.
> Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list