How is the parent a Troll? The poster provided absolutely no reason for why it has to be FREE (or even what kind of free was implied, my guess is $$$ since they were looking for a tool, not a library or other) and it's an important thing to know.
The issue isn't that there shouldn't ever be a written spec, as much as people's implementation of a spec IS the spec to work towards.
In reality, an interop specification should be updated regularly to keep track of all the little things people do to break them, in a similar way that there are myriads of CSS charts online that are functionally addendums to the specification, letting designers know that IE broke a certain thing, so avoid using that part of the spec, unless you also implement this workaround...
I hope that makes sense/clarifies the situation somewhat.
You're correct about links to actual urls. What I was thinking of (and didn't differentiate) was for specific javascript functions you were wanting to run, not actual pages you could surf to.
I did miss the alt thing. Oops.
Re:Realistically speaking...
on
Web Accessibility?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But a screen reader isn't the same thing as an aural user agent. A screen reader is an attempt to convey visible information via sound, whereas an aural user agent reads what is available. It's kinda like the difference between closed captioning and subtitles. One just represents who said what, and the other represents that plus environmental sounds that are pertinent to the reader.
Here's my top 10 big things to be aware of when it comes to accessibility: 1.) color blindness 2.) high contrast 3.) provide a way to skip navigation (users of screen readers benefit big time here) 4.) provide summary attributes for tables, as well as caption tags in those tables, provided they're data tables and not layout tables 5.) consider link tags in your head section to provide hrefs for the home, next, and previous links 6.) use headings properly 7.) don't force open new windows 8.) if you use javascript for anything, don't use it as href="javascript:blah()" use href="#" onclick="blah(); return false;" instead 9.) if you use javascript for updating content (ala AJAX) research a way to notify the user that the page has changed (I'm not sure if anyone actually has solved this problem yet) 10.) try loading your page in lynx and reading it aloud. see how long it takes you to get tired of doing that--that's what a screen-reader user's experience is gonna be like.
Realistically speaking...
on
Web Accessibility?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Realistically speaking there is a ton of work the major browser players need to do in order to advance the cause of accessibility. Mozilla and IE especially are horrid when it comes to representing metadata to disabled persons.
Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.
The biggest problem (as of today) probably lies in the content creation tools. Yeah, I know, the best sites should be coded by hand (which I do), but the majority of websites are maintained and created by tools that don't give a rip about accessibility (in any realistic way). Dreamweaver, Frontpage, et al really need to start stepping up in terms of accessibility.
Finally, educating those who actually do content management about the needs of the disabled is essential. Since it's a pain in the ass to make a site easily accessible by disabled persons, you need to care about the cause to put the time in to do it right.
"You put an XML parser on an XHTML document, and bam, it's read." And how many people actually do that? Huh? Firefox sure the heck doesn't. Ie doesn't. Some of the server-side stuff I do does, after running the input through HTML Tidy. Unless XHTML is delivered with the correct mime type, User Agents aren't gonna be using an xml parser at all. What it boils down to is this: MIME-type defines the document, not the doctype, not your markup, it's all MIME-type. If you serve as xml, the user agent parses as xml. If you serve as html, the user agent parses with an html parser. Case closed.
That's pretty cool! I'm curious why you didn't make the content of the embed a click to change this.className though? It'd be nice to have the ability to do either one when there's a site with flash ads and flash content versus just flash content.
If they liked the previous guy, don't try too hard to dissociate yourself from his policies. If they believed in him and considered his advice good, don't oppose his policies publicly. Work on winning people over first, then proceed to force your religious beliefs (Free Software) on them:)
In the end, you'll be just as highly considered as your predecessor was, and more-so with the money you save the district.
My biggest beef with SQL Server is that I'm used to using PostgreSQL and like things such as SELECT * FROM tablename LIMIT 5 OFFSET 20 to get a partial results list. With SQL Server I can select the TOP 5 results, but cannot offset them server side, which means I have to send more data to my client program which I don't wanna do. It's got a few little foibles other than that that bug me, but none of them come close to bothering me as much as the LIMIT/OFFSET one.
(secretly posting this to lure someone into refuting/solving my problem)
If I was to do that, I'd be sure to access gmail through https (and even then you may want to have a message with a javascript bookmarklet to encrypt/decrypt passwords rather than leave em in email).
Isn't it AMAZING how no matter what evil companies do, open source always loses? Mambo is totally WORTHLESS now isn't it? Miro really screwed the entire world with this move huh?
Sheesh man, cheer for victories, no matter how incomplete. Open source advocates should take what the can get and always push for more, not bitch about how spoiled their victory is.
Slashdot Mirror
How is the parent a Troll? The poster provided absolutely no reason for why it has to be FREE (or even what kind of free was implied, my guess is $$$ since they were looking for a tool, not a library or other) and it's an important thing to know.
That's interesting, and I can't say I've ever heard of it. How different is this from PEAR::DB?
When faced by that dilemma, I just go rent a copy of Labyrinth.
Just who did let all this riffraff into the room?
No blood in the caffeine stream? I'm not sure if this was a joke or a Freudian slip. Either way, I enjoyed it.
Where I grew up, as long as there are deer, there will be accidents :)
Can I mod you -1 Godwin's Law?
The issue isn't that there shouldn't ever be a written spec, as much as people's implementation of a spec IS the spec to work towards.
In reality, an interop specification should be updated regularly to keep track of all the little things people do to break them, in a similar way that there are myriads of CSS charts online that are functionally addendums to the specification, letting designers know that IE broke a certain thing, so avoid using that part of the spec, unless you also implement this workaround...
I hope that makes sense/clarifies the situation somewhat.
You're correct about links to actual urls. What I was thinking of (and didn't differentiate) was for specific javascript functions you were wanting to run, not actual pages you could surf to.
I did miss the alt thing. Oops.
But a screen reader isn't the same thing as an aural user agent. A screen reader is an attempt to convey visible information via sound, whereas an aural user agent reads what is available. It's kinda like the difference between closed captioning and subtitles. One just represents who said what, and the other represents that plus environmental sounds that are pertinent to the reader.
Here's my top 10 big things to be aware of when it comes to accessibility:
1.) color blindness
2.) high contrast
3.) provide a way to skip navigation (users of screen readers benefit big time here)
4.) provide summary attributes for tables, as well as caption tags in those tables, provided they're data tables and not layout tables
5.) consider link tags in your head section to provide hrefs for the home, next, and previous links
6.) use headings properly
7.) don't force open new windows
8.) if you use javascript for anything, don't use it as href="javascript:blah()" use href="#" onclick="blah(); return false;" instead
9.) if you use javascript for updating content (ala AJAX) research a way to notify the user that the page has changed (I'm not sure if anyone actually has solved this problem yet)
10.) try loading your page in lynx and reading it aloud. see how long it takes you to get tired of doing that--that's what a screen-reader user's experience is gonna be like.
Realistically speaking there is a ton of work the major browser players need to do in order to advance the cause of accessibility. Mozilla and IE especially are horrid when it comes to representing metadata to disabled persons.
Standards-wise there needs to be a screen-reader stylesheet, so those programs can be more beneficial to their users.
The biggest problem (as of today) probably lies in the content creation tools. Yeah, I know, the best sites should be coded by hand (which I do), but the majority of websites are maintained and created by tools that don't give a rip about accessibility (in any realistic way). Dreamweaver, Frontpage, et al really need to start stepping up in terms of accessibility.
Finally, educating those who actually do content management about the needs of the disabled is essential. Since it's a pain in the ass to make a site easily accessible by disabled persons, you need to care about the cause to put the time in to do it right.
"You put an XML parser on an XHTML document, and bam, it's read."
And how many people actually do that? Huh? Firefox sure the heck doesn't. Ie doesn't. Some of the server-side stuff I do does, after running the input through HTML Tidy. Unless XHTML is delivered with the correct mime type, User Agents aren't gonna be using an xml parser at all. What it boils down to is this: MIME-type defines the document, not the doctype, not your markup, it's all MIME-type. If you serve as xml, the user agent parses as xml. If you serve as html, the user agent parses with an html parser. Case closed.
That's pretty cool! I'm curious why you didn't make the content of the embed a click to change this.className though? It'd be nice to have the ability to do either one when there's a site with flash ads and flash content versus just flash content.
Very cool though.
Go read "Code Complete" and tell me your attitude hasn't changed.
Oh thank goodness, for a while there I thought all of the posts would just be sarcasm or nay-saying...
Well, the warranty ran out a Long Time Ago so you're prolly SOL.
So only 90% of the general populace then?
oh.
In that case...
If they liked the previous guy, don't try too hard to dissociate yourself from his policies. If they believed in him and considered his advice good, don't oppose his policies publicly. Work on winning people over first, then proceed to force your religious beliefs (Free Software) on them :)
In the end, you'll be just as highly considered as your predecessor was, and more-so with the money you save the district.
My biggest beef with SQL Server is that I'm used to using PostgreSQL and like things such as SELECT * FROM tablename LIMIT 5 OFFSET 20 to get a partial results list. With SQL Server I can select the TOP 5 results, but cannot offset them server side, which means I have to send more data to my client program which I don't wanna do. It's got a few little foibles other than that that bug me, but none of them come close to bothering me as much as the LIMIT/OFFSET one.
(secretly posting this to lure someone into refuting/solving my problem)
If I was to do that, I'd be sure to access gmail through https (and even then you may want to have a message with a javascript bookmarklet to encrypt/decrypt passwords rather than leave em in email).
I just figured you were from a parallel universe...
Well, the article says $1 per CPU per Hour so that would be ($1 * time)/(# cpus) so maybe using more CPUs gets you cheaper computing :)
It's a shame that PWNtcha isn't released to the public--a nice free OCR fork would be great.
Isn't it AMAZING how no matter what evil companies do, open source always loses? Mambo is totally WORTHLESS now isn't it? Miro really screwed the entire world with this move huh?
Sheesh man, cheer for victories, no matter how incomplete. Open source advocates should take what the can get and always push for more, not bitch about how spoiled their victory is.