HTML Editor

[tomy_baseo]

I'm new to HTML and want to learn the basics by learning to code by hand
(with the assistance of an HTML editor to eliminate repetitive tasks).
Can anyone recommend a good, basic HTML editor that's a step beyond
Notepad (not a WYSIWYG tool). Thanks.

[William Tasso]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, VisualVision wrote:

Do you think that is still needed to learn HTML
...
Btw, it's not polite on usenet to use more than 4 lines of sig.

Since in your case it's clearly commercial advertising,

or considering where the post was made, just common or garden trolling
perhaps.
I don't see
any reason to excuse over-stepping that mark. Anyone else?

heh - didn't see it. This poster was already on my skip list - no, I don't
use a kill-filter, just a randomly generated mental list based on recent
postings across many groups.

and yes - I agree 4 lines is the accepted max # of sig lines.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

[Brian]

VisualVision wrote:

Do you think that is still needed to learn HTML? I don't believe.
One line for the response, 9 for the sig. Not a good s/n ratio.
Aldo

--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
http://www.HyperPublish.com Catalogs, CD and sites with 1 tool
http://www.EasyWebEditor.com Create a nice Web site with ease
http://www.1site.info A professional Website quickly
http://www.EBooksWriter.com Exploit the artist inside you!
http://www.PaperKiller.com Create manuals or HTMLHelp quickly
http://www.CdFrontEnd.com Create autorun CD visually

Visual Vision - http://visualvision.com http://visualvision.it
leader in hypertext authoring [ASP members, ESC members]

Would you please (a) trim your signature, and (b) fix the sig
delimiter? It's two hypens and a space, "-- " and not "--" as you
have it. Thank you.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

I study all those tutorials about how to achieve 2-column and
3-column layouts: all you need is these non-validating browser
hacks!

You do not need to create invalid html markup to create a
3-column layout, or indeed any layout. On the contrary, one
should always start with valid (I mean that in the technical,
sgml sense of that word) markup.

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks.

No css hack can make a valid html document become invalid. You do
grok "valid (in the technical, sgml sense of that word)," don't you?
In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.

As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those methods.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Barry Pearson]

Brian wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

I study all those tutorials about how to achieve 2-column and
3-column layouts: all you need is these non-validating browser
hacks!

You do not need to create invalid html markup to create a
3-column layout, or indeed any layout. On the contrary, one
should always start with valid (I mean that in the technical,
sgml sense of that word) markup.

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks.

No css hack can make a valid html document become invalid. You do
grok "valid (in the technical, sgml sense of that word)," don't you?

Whenever I say "valid" or "validate", I mean with reference to the relevant
standards. And my main test is to use the W3C on-line validation services for
CSS & HTML. My target is for all my CSS and all my HTML to validate at W3C
without warnings or errors. I also use various other on-line services, but W3C
represents the go/no-go decision. I validate other sites I am visiting using
those services, because if they don't validate, I could not copy their methods
without modification.

In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.

As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those methods.

That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000 high-information
table-layout pages onto the web each day.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Pearson]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

[snip]

I believe UA-developers will gradually overcome these problems,

That's naive. For UA's to be able to tell the difference between
proper tabular data and misuse of tables requires either the complet
solving of AI (I wouldn't hold a breath waiting for that), or
someone to go through every HTML page ever created, and will ever
be created and hardcode into the parsing routine whether the table
referred to is misuse for layout or a proper table.

They don't need that.

Why not? How else do you judge whether a table is correctly used or
not. How else do you judge the author's intent? Perhaps a mind
reading device instead? A browser that uses structure _needs_ to have
a way of determining whether an element is correctly used or not -
otherwise tables misused are an imposition to accessibility -
contrary to your position.

[snip]

The objective of the user + UA isn't to "judge whether a table is correctly
used or not". That is a problem that doesn't need to be solved. It may even be
insoluble, even to sighted people. It is "opinion".

The objective is to access the content. The task of navigating to content is a
vastly different activity, and orders of magnitude simpler, than the task of
judging whether a table is correctly used or not. If every news article in the
world used <h1> as the heading for the article, the task for the user would be
simple. It isn't. That is a problem. A tableless layout that doesn't use <h1>
might also be a problem.

It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip]
> I believe UA-developers will gradually overcome these problems,

That's naive. For UA's to be able to tell the difference between
proper tabular data and misuse of tables requires either the complet
solving of AI (I wouldn't hold a breath waiting for that), or
someone to go through every HTML page ever created, and will ever
be created and hardcode into the parsing routine whether the table
referred to is misuse for layout or a proper table.

They don't need that.
Why not? How else do you judge whether a table is correctly used or
not. How else do you judge the author's intent? Perhaps a mind
reading device instead? A browser that uses structure _needs_ to have
a way of determining whether an element is correctly used or not -
otherwise tables misused are an imposition to accessibility -
contrary to your position.

[snip]

The objective of the user + UA isn't to "judge whether a table is
correctly used or not".

Then how are they supposed to read tabular information properly? Or are you
now forbidding it?
The objective is to access the content. The task of navigating to content
is a vastly different activity, and orders of magnitude simpler,
Rubbish. Access to content also includes that it is structured properly.
When last did you read and understand a thousand page novel where all the
words in the book were listed alphabetically instead of formed into proper
chapters, sentences and paragraphs? The structure of the content is part of
what makes it accessible.

If every news
article in the world used <h1> as the heading for the article, the task
for the user would be simple. It isn't.
Yes it is. All top-level headers are then spoken in the same tone - easy to
distinguish that from a normal reading voice.

It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.

Understanding the content rather than receiving it in an unstrutured and
random way.

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS positioning
is rife with CSS browser hacks.

CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched websites.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Barry Pearson]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.

CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
websites.

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering. They use
tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of circumstances. They
don't take undue risks with browser-specific hacks or work-arounds. They may
be a bit boring, but they work.

I believe the onus is on tableless-layout advocates to demonstrate that they
can achieve the same penetration and business advantage. It isn't a matter of
evangelising. What matters is whether those people can succeed in practice in
a mass market. If they can, many people will follow. I will follow! So I am
trying to monitor whether or not they are succeeding.

I realise how important it is for those evangelists to talk up a story. But
that isn't enough. Lots of people throughout history have been able to talk up
a good story! Concorde had advocates who could talk up a good story, and for
many years was a brilliant airplane. And now look at what has happened. Is
tableless layout the next VHS or the next Betamax?

I'll watch with interest. And be ready to jump when the time is right.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.

CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
websites.

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.

Certainly doesn't look it. Do you have proof that these table-layout
websites have actually been through accessibility testing (a completed
checklist of something like WCAG would be sufficient).
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Brian]

Barry Pearson wrote:

In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.

As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those methods.

That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000 high-information
table-layout pages onto the web each day.

No. You're the one advocating using their authoring practices,
though. You're the one telling everying here that we can rely on
table-layout methods, when we cannot.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Barry Pearson wrote:

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.

But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
asserting that "table-layout websites...work."

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Barry Pearson]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.

CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
websites.

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.

Certainly doesn't look it. Do you have proof that these table-layout
websites have actually been through accessibility testing (a completed
checklist of something like WCAG would be sufficient).

I drive a motor car that is soundly engineered by any plausible standard. It
is a 3-door coupe, needing a bit of agility to get in and out. It works well
for its target market/audience.

By all means try to persuade those news sites, etc, to include the users of
accessibility technology in their target audience, and test for them. I don't
know whether or not they had such users in the target audience. If they were,
I don't know to what extent they tested for them. Perhaps they did test, and
said "good enough". It isn't just the disabled who have problems with those
sites. People with narrow screens also see rather a lot of content that has to
be scrolled a lot. In that case, I doubt if users of those screens were in the
target audience. There is no rule that they had to be.

I believe the problem with news sites is not the use of tables. Even without
the tables, there is lots of stuff on a page that has to be navigated around.
Much, sometimes most, of what is on the page is not the reason for going to
that specific page. I believe the single thing that would help is if there was
a common way to get to the article text with one action. The simplest, and
perhaps most obvious way, would be if each article header was the <h1> element
on the page. Some news sites do exactly that. See example below (on a topic
relevant here). Most sites don't.
http://education.independent.co.uk/f...p?story=449223

I think predictable hierarchic structure is more important than the
table/tableless debate. I try to ensure that all my inner pages have their
unique content (rather than overheads & navigation) starting at <h1>. (There
are some known exceptions that will be fixed in future, and some pages are
continuations of large sections and so start <h2>). Even the photograph pages
have the photograph as the sole content of an <h1> element, in the expectation
that a blind person can get there immediately and hear the alt-text. (I
suspect that is probably a pointless gesture - I doubt if many blind people go
to my photograph pages).

When a page has unique content, administrative information, all the navigation
links, and the same-on-all-pages site material, rapid access to any one of
these needs some different from tableless layout. I've seen tableless layout
pages that use a list for the navigation links, turned into buttons using CSS.
But how do you get there? Do you put it before the unique content? After? Do
you have to learn this afresh for each new site visited?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Isofarro wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

> CSS hacks, not HTML hacks. The topic of tableless layout & CSS
> positioning is rife with CSS browser hacks.

CSS hacks can be switched off without affecting the structure of the
content, so the accessibility of the content isn't sacrificed, only
improved. You cannot say the same about table-layout debauched
websites.

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.

Certainly doesn't look it. Do you have proof that these table-layout
websites have actually been through accessibility testing (a completed
checklist of something like WCAG would be sufficient).

I drive a motor car that is soundly engineered by any plausible standard.

Which is documented through a Quality Assurance process before being
delivered to the public. (There will be a record at the plant where the car
was put together). Now can you _absolutely_ say the same about these
websites? I quite doubt it.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Barry Pearson]

[This is a consolidated response to a number of posts, to avoid repetition]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]

It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.

Understanding the content rather than receiving it in an unstrutured
and random way.

See comments later about structure.

Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:

In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.

As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those
methods.
That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000
high-information table-layout pages onto the web each day.

No. You're the one advocating using their authoring practices,
though. You're the one telling everying here that we can rely on
table-layout methods, when we cannot.

See comments later about accessibility sites using table-layout.

Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.

But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
asserting that "table-layout websites...work."

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some sites concerned
with accessibility don't use proper structure. There appears to be an attitude
of "do as I say, not do as I do". I provide some examples below.

I am wondering whether the main obstacle to achieving accessibility on the web
is the "accessibility industry". The people and organisations who should be
providing guidance, but instead appear to be making it look as hard as
possible. Then perhaps the second obstacle to achieving accessibility on the
web are those who promote their own preferences under the heading of
"accessibility". For example, people who claim that a key to accessibility is
tableless layout, when proper examination shows that this still leaves major
issues unsolved.

I'll show examples of the obstacles that the accessibility industry erects,
then examples of how they don't always follow their own guidance.

Here is an incredibly simple page. The HTML is less than 2KB. The overall
page-layout is tableless. It starts with a <h1>. It validates at W3C as 4.01
Strict. Its CSS validates at W3C with no errors or warnings. It is just one
photograph and a few words!
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...01_02_37_2.htm

I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is what it says about that page. It is
an extract from the 5KB XML report.

- Non spacer IMG with equivalent ALT [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL --
- Non spacer IMG needs LONGDESC [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL -- Non spacer image may need a LONGDESC attribute.
- Color is not essential [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2.1] -- MANUAL --
- Colors are visible [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2] -- MANUAL --
- Style sheets should not be necessary [Section 508 1194.22(d); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 6.1] -- MANUAL -- The page uses style sheets to present its
content. There might be browsers unable to understand style sheets or provided
style sheets may conflict with user-specified style information.
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Use clear language for site's content [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1] --
MANUAL --
- Clarify natural language usage [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 4.1] -- MANUAL --

What the heck am I supposed to do with that? I have 337 tableless Strict pages
on the web. No one has paid me to do it. Does anyone believe for a second that
I will bother even to check what all that means? Or that anyone else in the
same situation will bother? Unless someone pays some serious money for me to
bother! That sort of thing simply generates contempt for the accessibility
industry. Not contempt for disabled people - they have my sympathy, especially
because they are being represented in that way! I won't copy here what "Bobby"
says about that page. It is along the same lines, and 6KB in size.

As I said, I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is their home page:
http://www.usablenet.com/
Fascinating! Primarily table-layout with several <h1>s on the page. The <h1>s
appear to be headings for links, not for the main content of the page.

I've mentioned "Bobby". Primarily table-layout. Like a number of Bobby pages,
it has an <h1>. Which says "Bobby". It doesn't identify the unique content of
the page. That starts at <h2>.
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/advanced.jsp

The Cynthia SaysT portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of
ICDRI..., The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter... and
HiSoftware...
http://www.contentquality.com/
It has a little but not much table-oriented layout (it is basically simple and
serial), but no <hn> that I have spotted.

The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others need to stop
pursuing their own agendas under the heading of accessibility. Then perhaps we
can move constructively towards a genuinely more accessible web.

I believe that the single most important principle should be "use <h1> for the
start of the page's unique content". That is what I try to do. A nice, simple
rule, that might be cheap to apply across many sites. Even the accessibility
industry's sites could probably manage something so simple!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Pearson]

[This is a consolidated response to a number of posts, to avoid repetition]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]

It is important to focus on what the users are trying to achieve.

Understanding the content rather than receiving it in an unstrutured
and random way.

See comments later about structure.

Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:

In the meantime, we can rely on basic table-layout methods.

As long as we use your browsers. But I don't always use your
browsers. Sometimes, I use Lynx. So I cannot rely on those
methods.
That is not my problem. I am not the one pushing 100,000
high-information table-layout pages onto the web each day.

No. You're the one advocating using their authoring practices,
though. You're the one telling everying here that we can rely on
table-layout methods, when we cannot.

See comments later about accessibility sites using table-layout.

Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:

I believe most table-layout websites I see use sound engineering.
They use tried and tested methods. These work for a huge range of
circumstances. They don't take undue risks with browser-specific
hacks or work-arounds. They may be a bit boring, but they work.

But they don't. As I have *already* shown you. But of course, as is
so often the case, you choose to ignore that and go on blithely
asserting that "table-layout websites...work."

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some sites concerned
with accessibility don't use proper structure. There appears to be an attitude
of "do as I say, not do as I do". I provide some examples below.

I am wondering whether the main obstacle to achieving accessibility on the web
is the "accessibility industry". The people and organisations who should be
providing guidance, but instead appear to be making it look as hard as
possible. Then perhaps the second obstacle to achieving accessibility on the
web are those who promote their own preferences under the heading of
"accessibility". For example, people who claim that a key to accessibility is
tableless layout, when proper examination shows that this still leaves major
issues unsolved.

I'll show examples of the obstacles that the accessibility industry erects,
then examples of how they don't always follow their own guidance.

Here is an incredibly simple page. The HTML is less than 2KB. The overall
page-layout is tableless. It starts with a <h1>. It validates at W3C as 4.01
Strict. Its CSS validates at W3C with no errors or warnings. It is just one
photograph and a few words!
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...01_02_37_2.htm

I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is what it says about that page. It is
an extract from the 5KB XML report.

- Non spacer IMG with equivalent ALT [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL --
- Non spacer IMG needs LONGDESC [Section 508 1194.22(a); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 1.1] -- MANUAL -- Non spacer image may need a LONGDESC attribute.
- Color is not essential [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2.1] -- MANUAL --
- Colors are visible [Section 508 1194.22(c); WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
2] -- MANUAL --
- Style sheets should not be necessary [Section 508 1194.22(d); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 6.1] -- MANUAL -- The page uses style sheets to present its
content. There might be browsers unable to understand style sheets or provided
style sheets may conflict with user-specified style information.
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Data table should have headers [Section 508 1194.22(g); WAI/WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 5.1] -- MANUAL -- The page contains a table that might be used to
present data. If this is the case, then the table has to have headers for rows
and columns (i.e. TH elements).
- Use clear language for site's content [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1] --
MANUAL --
- Clarify natural language usage [WAI/WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 4.1] -- MANUAL --

What the heck am I supposed to do with that? I have 337 tableless Strict pages
on the web. No one has paid me to do it. Does anyone believe for a second that
I will bother even to check what all that means? Or that anyone else in the
same situation will bother? Unless someone pays some serious money for me to
bother! That sort of thing simply generates contempt for the accessibility
industry. Not contempt for disabled people - they have my sympathy, especially
because they are being represented in that way! I won't copy here what "Bobby"
says about that page. It is along the same lines, and 6KB in size.

As I said, I use the UseableNet extension to Dreamweaver 4 to check pages for
accessibility under the 508 rules. Here is their home page:
http://www.usablenet.com/
Fascinating! Primarily table-layout with several <h1>s on the page. The <h1>s
appear to be headings for links, not for the main content of the page.

I've mentioned "Bobby". Primarily table-layout. Like a number of Bobby pages,
it has an <h1>. Which says "Bobby". It doesn't identify the unique content of
the page. That starts at <h2>.
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/advanced.jsp

The Cynthia SaysT portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of
ICDRI..., The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter... and
HiSoftware...
http://www.contentquality.com/
It has a little but not much table-oriented layout (it is basically simple and
serial), but no <hn> that I have spotted.

The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others need to stop
pursuing their own agendas under the heading of accessibility. Then perhaps we
can move constructively towards a genuinely more accessible web.

I believe that the single most important principle should be "use <h1> for the
start of the page's unique content". That is what I try to do. A nice, simple
rule, that might be cheap to apply across many sites. Even the accessibility
industry's sites could probably manage something so simple!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.

List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.

<navel-fluff snipped>

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:04:06 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.

List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.

http://web.archive.org/web/200206090...://www.w3.org/
Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Brian]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout. Some
sites concerned with accessibility don't use proper structure.
In both cases, those sites should make corrections.
There appears to be an attitude of "do as I say, not do as I do". The accessibility industry needs to gets its act together. Others
need to stop pursuing their own agendas under the heading of
accessibility.
Are the people responsible for those badly coded accessibility sites
participating in this thread? Are they even participants in the ciwa*
groups? If not, then your points looks like a strawman argument from
someone quick to accuse others of using strawman tactics.
I believe that the single most important principle should be "use
<h1> for the start of the page's unique content".

Has anyone suggested that using h1 is a bad idea? Or is this
a(nother) strawman argument?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Isofarro]

Jim Ley wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:04:06 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Some sites concerned with accessibility use table-layout.

List a few table layout websites that meet or exceed Level AA compliance.

http://web.archive.org/web/200206090...://www.w3.org/

(I'm ignoring the dynamic main content bit, and focusing on the static /
template-based portions of the page).

Hmmm... It definitely fails checkpoint 3.2:
* validate to published formal grammars
* <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-identify-grammar>
*
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F200 20609044816%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F>
because of an invalid attribute on the script element. If it were something
like an unescaped entity in the constantly updated part of the document -
its forgiveable. But not when its a static part of the page.

The more relevant checkpoint: I don't see how it passes checkpoint 3.3
* Use style sheets to control layout and presentation
* <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-style-sheets>

Yes, it looks to linearise decently, so checkpoint 5.3 is okay.

Couple of oopsies on the search form:
* Not clear the form is a search form until after the first radio button
* No explicit labels for form fields.
* It would make more sense putting the radio buttons after the text (IMO)

And one more poke at the javascript - the usage of <!-- -->on an
XHTML-Transitional page, should that not be <![CDATA[ ]]>?
Overall, it is a good attempt at an accessible layout - one of the better
ones I've seen. A few little things, but checkpoint 3.3 is, IMO, where it
does fail, because of a tabled-control layout instead of a stylesheet
controlled layout. Am I reading too much into 3.3?
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Isofarro wrote:

And one more poke at the javascript - the usage of <!-- -->on an
XHTML-Transitional page, should that not be <![CDATA[ ]]>?

That whole area is a horrible mess, which is why the W3C
recommendation is not to attempt using inlined JS in XHTML. Sounds as
if they didn't follow their own good advice on that...

There's a truly heroic formula been posted in several variations, that
is supposed to be compatible with all of the applicable formal rules,
as well as being digestible by both HTML-ish client agents and by
XHTML-ish client agents; but even in its original SGML variant it was
disowned by its author[1], and the XML-ised version is, if anything,
worse.

See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc************@corp.supernews.com

cheers

[1] Since he disowned it, may I say who he is? Well, it's in the
record somewhere, so I suppose I can say Arjun Ray.

[Isofarro]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc************@corp.supernews.com

Ahh, thanks for that reference. I'm going to need it really soon. As part of
evangelising webstandards where I work, I've tried to push developers to
put their javascript in external files, but there are reasons not to do it.
I'll give the above a go - perhaps I get lucky and scare a few developers
into submission. (Well they are Java developers)

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Isofarro wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

See for example the thread which includes this posting from Mr.
alt.dev.null himself, message-id: vc************@corp.supernews.com

Ahh, thanks for that reference.

Well, I see the thread got somewhat fragmented in Google. There's
further discussion in the thread which contains
vc************@corp.supernews.com , just in case you miss it.

I don't think we ever quite got a "right" answer, although some of
the ones we got were "good enough for government work" as our
transpondian friends put it.