Using Tables for Layout

[Barry Pearson]

Crayons?

Gosh! That is new technology in this context to me!

Can you explain here how to use crayons to separate mark-up from presentation?

Thank you.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

If I were blind I would be pissed at Reader builders, not the
designers of the sites. For the most part, the "sighted" visitor
can (if they choose) see everything regardless of browser.

At the very lease, the readers have to meet this same standard.

Put your brain in screen-reader mode (i.e., look only at the markup,
not at the page) and pay a visit to http://www.target.com/ . Quick:
tell me how to get to the "Mervyn's" store.

The word "mervyn" appears *nowhere* in the source for that page. A
sighted visitor will see a Mervyn's image tab and will be able to read
that name as easily as any other text on the page. But a screen-reader
can't read an image, and with nothing else to hint at the presence of
a link to the Mervyn's store, its user is at a distinct disadvantage.

Maybe screen-readers should include OCR software, and be able to
relate image map coordinates to the transformed image data. Then the
site might work for a screen-reader. I'm willing to grant that, but
now we have another problem...

Suppose -- not that it *ever* happens of course -- that Amazon's image
server goes down. Then any user of the Target site -- sighted or
otherwise -- is screwed. Unless you're already very familiar with the
site or with Amazon's URL scheme, the Target site becomes very
difficult to navigate and nearly impossible to purchase anything on.

So here's a case where the sighted reader can't get around the site
any better than someone using a screen-reader. It's virtually unusable
for both.

Who should the sighted reader be pissed at now? The site or their own
browser?

 

[Kris]

Try this:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/CSSZEN2.JPG (44k)

Now. Try the same with your browser, reducing it to the same width as
mine and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So? 1). This does not go for all designs at CSSZG, so it is hardly an
argument for bashing the entire initiative. 2). You must have a great
time on the internet, you know, the place where most of the sites do not
scale with the window? I am not saying that I am pro-fixed width design.
On the contrary.

I would expect the RHS text
column should reduce in width to compensate for the reduced width of the
window, or wrap under the LHS column; either way, the text should still
be visible. But it can't, and it isn't.

I'm not sure I see your point. IE users *are* 85% of the Web.

It is clear you don't see my point. See above.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are ;-)

Plonk you very much then.

 

[Whitecrest]

And the answer is to use CSS
for the content of table cells! Don't we all agree?

Brilliant.... Uh, wait, thats what we do now...

 

[Whitecrest]

Gosh! That is new technology in this context to me!
Can you explain here how to use crayons to separate mark-up from presentation?

I could, but it would involve brucie, dildo's and porn

NOTE TO NEWBIES: Notice how easy it is to turn any thread into a brucie,
dildo, and porn thread.

 

[Whitecrest]

Put your brain in screen-reader mode....
Maybe screen-readers should include OCR software...

That actually is an option.

So here's a case where the sighted reader can't get around the site
any better than someone using a screen-reader. It's virtually unusable
for both.

Who should the sighted reader be pissed at now? The site or their own
browser?

Why would they be pissed at either? The image server is down. There is
no user based control for that. That is like getting pissed at your TV
because the cable is out.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

That actually is an option.

I agree and suspect it'll become commonplace at some point.

Why would they be pissed at either? The image server is down.
There is no user based control for that.

Right, there is no user control. So being pissed at the browser is
inappropriate. However, the folks who build the website *could* make
it usable even when the image server is down. There is no reason that
the Target site -- or many, many others -- should be *dependent* on
images to be usable. Getting pissed at the site is appropriate.

All it would take to fix the problem is some sensible alt-text. And
then the site also becomes usable for the current generation of screen
readers.

My point is, we can expect/hope/demand that screen readers acquire all
sorts of marvelous technology like OCR. But even if they do, it's
*still* in the best interest of image-reliant sites to provide some
accomodation for the case where images are not available: whether it's
because of the browser or a server-side problem.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Joel Shepherd wrote:
[snip]

My point is, we can expect/hope/demand that screen readers acquire all
sorts of marvelous technology like OCR. But even if they do, it's
*still* in the best interest of image-reliant sites to provide some
accomodation for the case where images are not available: whether it's
because of the browser or a server-side problem.

For my photograph pages, there is no plausible accomodation if the images are
not available or can't be seen. They exist purely for sighted people to look
at. No more, no less.

If you have never driven 100s of miles simply to look at other people's
photographs hanging on a wall, with no information other than their names, you
may not be able to understand this. If you haven't bought perhaps 100 books of
photographs in your life, simply to look at the photographs, you may not be
able to understand this.

 

[Els]

Joel Shepherd wrote:
[snip]

My point is, we can expect/hope/demand that screen readers acquire all
sorts of marvelous technology like OCR. But even if they do, it's
*still* in the best interest of image-reliant sites to provide some
accomodation for the case where images are not available: whether it's
because of the browser or a server-side problem.

For my photograph pages, there is no plausible accomodation if the images are
not available or can't be seen. They exist purely for sighted people to look
at. No more, no less.

If you have never driven 100s of miles simply to look at other people's
photographs hanging on a wall, with no information other than their names, you
may not be able to understand this. If you haven't bought perhaps 100 books of
photographs in your life, simply to look at the photographs, you may not be
able to understand this.

I do understand it.
But doesn't Google use the alt text to index the photos in
the search engine?
So that sighted people can find them?

 

[William Tasso]

...
But doesn't Google use the alt text to index the photos in
the search engine?
So that sighted people can find them?

Not sure, but it should be fairly trivial to prove. I wonder if anyone
already has.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Joel Shepherd wrote: [snip]

My point is, we can expect/hope/demand that screen readers
acquire all sorts of marvelous technology like OCR. But even if
they do, it's *still* in the best interest of image-reliant sites
to provide some accomodation for the case where images are not
available: whether it's because of the browser or a server-side
problem.

For my photograph pages, there is no plausible accomodation if the
images are not available or can't be seen. They exist purely for
sighted people to look at. No more, no less.

Sure: that's fine. And of nearly zero relevance to a commercial site
like Target's, which, if you haven't noticed, is *not* attempting to
be online art gallery.

If you have never driven 100s of miles simply to look at other
people's photographs hanging on a wall, with no information other
than their names, you may not be able to understand this.

I do understand this. Do you understand that an e-commerce site and
and online art gallery aren't the same thing? I'm having my doubts.

 

[Whitecrest]

Right, there is no user control. So being pissed at the browser is
inappropriate. However, the folks who build the website *could* make
it usable even when the image server is down. There is no reason that
the Target site -- or many, many others -- should be *dependent* on
images to be usable. Getting pissed at the site is appropriate.

Go to a different site if you don't like it rather than getting your
undies in a bunch. Thats what I do. if you and others leaving have an
effect on the company, then they will change. If not, then they won't
It is pretty simple actually.

All it would take to fix the problem is some sensible alt-text. And
then the site also becomes usable for the current generation of screen
readers.

I completely agree, and everyone should do that. But I do not agree
with not using Images, Flash, javascript, what ever just because there
may be someone out there that for what ever reason can not see the site.
This is a choice the site has to make.

But even if they do, it's
*still* in the best interest of image-reliant sites to provide some
accomodation for the case where images are not available: whether it's
because of the browser or a server-side problem.

Not always. It is not always in the best interest of a site to make
sure that 100% of the visitors can see 100% of the site. Doing so may
make the visitors you WANT to come, go somewhere else. This is more
likely when the site is a form of advertising and branding than if the
site is directly related to the revenue of the site.

 

[Whitecrest]

Not sure, but it should be fairly trivial to prove. I wonder if anyone
already has.

Yea, and they don't

 

[Whitecrest]

Joel Shepherd wrote: [snip]
For my photograph pages, there is no plausible accomodation if the
images are not available or can't be seen. They exist purely for
sighted people to look at. No more, no less.

Sure: that's fine. And of nearly zero relevance to a commercial site
like Target's, which, if you haven't noticed, is *not* attempting to
be online art gallery.

Target should be accessible to as many as they can. Their target (no
pun intended) audience is everyone with a family income of (guessing)
less than 100k, and their site is there for one main purpose. So sell
something. Not all sites do that.

 

[jake]

So? 1). This does not go for all designs at CSSZG, so it is hardly an
argument for bashing the entire initiative.

Where did I say that?

2). You must have a great
time on the internet, you know, the place where most of the sites do not
scale with the window? I am not saying that I am pro-fixed width design.
On the contrary.

In which case I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It is clear you don't see my point. See above.

Like I say: if a large percentage of your viewers can't read the text,
then what's the point? It may well be a browser issue, but it's a 'real
world' issue which the designer has to consider rather than ignore.

Plonk you very much then.

You're welcome. Bye.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]

For my photograph pages, there is no plausible accomodation if the
images are not available or can't be seen. They exist purely for
sighted people to look at. No more, no less.

If you have never driven 100s of miles simply to look at other
people's photographs hanging on a wall, with no information other
than their names, you may not be able to understand this. If you
haven't bought perhaps 100 books of photographs in your life, simply
to look at the photographs, you may not be able to understand this.

I do understand it.
But doesn't Google use the alt text to index the photos in
the search engine?
So that sighted people can find them?

Yup! And as far as I can tell it works. I get my photographs indexed by
Google, and I get people who found them asking to buy them.

I put a lot of effort into trying to use exactly the right alt-text and
title-text for my thumbnail galleries and photographs. I try to ensure that
Google and other search engines can find them. I certainly ensure that they
validate as 4.01 Strict. If there are photographers who start browsing without
images being downloaded, I try to encourage them to look at my photographs. I
try hard to get the right balance between what is directly visible on the
page, and what appears via tooltips. I try to use <title>, meta-data,
alt-text, title-text, and surrounding text, to best effect. I keep intending
to write up what I do, because it took me a lot of analysis to arrive at my
method.

But ... there is no plausible accomodation for people who can never see them.
As I said above.