Archive for February, 2006

Accessibility: Coming to a website near you

Friday, February 10th, 2006

Lastest Buzz from the Web Standards project says that the The US National Federation of the Blind has been filed a lawsuit against Target for the inaccessibility of their website. This is big. Although there is legislation which addresses the need to address accessibility on the web, it is not enforced. This lawsuit could bring about the beginning of the end of inaccessible websites. If Target is forced to fix their broken website, a lot of organizations will surely follow.

What’s big about this is that for those of us who have been evangelising standards and accessibility for years, we are armed with the skills to manage the demand when it comes. The problem is that skills aren’t always enough. You may be able to walk the walk but you need to be able to talk the talk. Accessibility can mean a variety of things and the message needs to be clear when you deliver it.

Christian Heilmann has written three articles on Digital Web which may prove to be helpful in developing your own version of the message which are worth a read. The first article, 10 Reasons Clients Don’t Care About Accessibility, brings several good points about why organizations don’t care about accessibilty issues. These may help you develop your own reasons why they should. Internalizing these points can help the Standards evangelist in all of us prepare for the accessibility conversation.

Heilmann’s second piece is a two part article discussing Seven Accessibility Mistakes (part 2). All seven points he makes in this article are important to the idea of accessiblity. Something which caught my eye though was at the end of Seven Accessibility Mistakes Part 2 when he writes, Start a catalogue of success stories of user-centered design for all your projects. You might be able to implement one bit in each of those and assemble a good portfolio to show new prospects in the future. This is equally important when it comes to evangelising accessibility and standards because people love to follow in the footsteps of success.

The point here is that although talking to clients about accessibilty is akin to talking to your kids about sex, if you are prepared for the conversation it will be easier. Knowing why a client should, or should not, implement a particular feature or trick on their site before the conversation arises will help you to avert the crisis.

Smuggling Proprietary CSS and the Validity of the Validator

Thursday, February 9th, 2006

Will makes an interesting point in his blog post about using browser-specific CSS and still having webpages validate. His quandry:

Have you ever been tempted to use a CSS property such as -moz-border-radius, but can’t stand the thought of having a page that refuses to validate?

He can’t add it to an external stylesheet through <link>, nor can he use it internally within <style>; if he does, neither will validate.

However, adding the proprietary CSS to a style attribute on an element gets around the problem, since the W3C HTML validator does not check the validity of CSS within style attributes.

Observe; the code below uses the -moz-border-radius, but the resulting HTML will still validate.

The code:

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0.5em;
   border: 2px solid #605953;
   -moz-border-radius: 25px;
   background: #f1efec;">
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
</div>

The result:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

On the one hand, it’s a neat trick (not necessarily a hack) that gets around the validator and allows a developer to use non-standard styles on his page. On the other hand, that’s exactly it: it’s non-standard; and I agree whole-heartedly with Will, who so colorfully elucidates:

Yeah, it is kind of an ugly method, but you shouldn’t care since if you’re going to use it, right? After all, depending on proprietary CSS is like depending on a rotten wood catwalk over a tank full of the proverbial kind of bovine fecal matter.

All of the above got my brain thinking about validation and standards.

The W3C Validators are not the end-all-be-all definitive sources for creating standards-based websites. As Will (and now I) have successfully pointed out, proprietary (and, in most cases, non-standard, non-valid) code can be “smuggled” into a website and can trick the validators into thinking the code is perfectly valid.

The point is that standards are about much more than just validation. They are also about what works for you. You may have a certain work ethic, i.e. a personal standard, that no one else has heard of, let alone uses for himself. Does that make your work ethic any less valid? Pft. Of course not.

Any Joe with an Internet connection and a text editor can create a page that validates and claim it’s “standards-compliant”. As Mike Davidson wrote almost twenty months ago:

Web standards are about all the processes involved in publishing information over IP. [...] Just because you can validate your code doesn’t mean you are better than anybody else. Heck, it doesn’t even necessarily mean you write better code than anybody else. [...] Spewing validation manifestos on message boards isn’t going to show you how to listen, negotiate, compromise, and execute.