http://mgjuddltd.co.uk compliance,

Phillip Whiteside phillw at phillw.net
Wed Jun 23 04:14:38 BST 2010


hay, bob, you know me... quiet....

http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16300

<http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16300>but that seems to be
the way it is.

I know there is someone on this listing who said that it was it was his loss
when people who try, get fed up of negativity and just walk away. Well, I
owe it to him and a couple of people to try and not let that happen to me
again.

There is an old saying "You're either with me, or against me" Some one
forgot the "we" part of that, "We can get it to work"
I don't know how many people will help, but I will keep trying as long as
one person who will do so is there.

This is not directed at you Bob, it is a request to others on the mailing
list to help out. There is, out of 200+ books on computing in the central
library exactly zero books on accessibilty, that makes it really difficult
to try and learn this stuff. As you know I'm putting my experience onto the
baby forum and when I get through this part of crash and burn from AAA to
posssibly A rating I will put what I have learned on there.

But, we need volunteers to let us know where our theory of screen readers is
at odds with those who use them. More over, there are others who need people
to test things out and let them know they are at least trying and help them.

For those who feel hard done by, have a read of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston It is not what he can not do, it
is what he can do (I choose that as I remember from my youth what happened
in that 'skirmish').

Regards,

Phill.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Bob Trevithick <bob.trevithick at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yeah, it does seem silly in this case.  Maybe there's something to be
> said for not slavishly following the accessibility rules.  Get the
> sense of what they're getting at, and see if they make sense for what
> you're doing.
>
> In the U.S. I believe the law is that we have to meet Section 508 only
> if we receive Federal monies.  I think many people feel the
> regulations leave quite a bit to be desired.  I think it will be a
> while before this becomes a science.
>
> I was wondering if you could number them sequentially down the page,
> as 1) , 2) and so on.
>
> Heading for bed.  Suggest you sleep on this before doing something you
> think is silly.  Maybe there's a way that makes sense.  I can't think
> of it off-hand.  Maybe include something in the database query which
> isn't actually used?
> "href='display_part.php?PID=$PID&not_used=$not_used' and then just
> keep incrementing the $not_used value?  That way at least the screen
> reader won't have to pronounce all of the nonsense.
>
> We'll come up with something.
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Phillip Whiteside <phillw at phillw.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 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
> > stuff.
> > <?php
> > $this_is_silly= rand()
> > echo " <a class = 'N' title='M.G. Judd Part
> > Number".$this_is_silly."href='display_part.php?PID=$PID'>$MGJPartNo</a>";
> > $this_is_silly= rand()
> > echo " <a class = 'N' title='Original Engineers Manufacturing Number
> > ".$this_is_silly."href='display_part.php?PID=$PID'>$MGJPartNo</a>";
> > ?>
> > 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.
> > Phill.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Bob Trevithick <
> bob.trevithick at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Phillip Whiteside <phillw at phillw.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The bounces are most likely caused by me using my default email
> account
> >> > (vpolink) and not my phillw.net 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...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-accessibility/attachments/20100623/e8200904/attachment.htm 


More information about the Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list