How to Create A Link in a certain FRAME

[petro]

Until now I have used hover buttons inside my web pages. It seems to be lent and error full sometimes. It is true ?
I have inserted them with frontpage so I did not knowed too much about... I have searched web for something much faster and a little bit different and the answer seems to be "fading buttons" created with java.

how to exactly direct a link to a specific frame ... near that code with window.location HOW ?

Please help !

<input type=button name=button value=" Home " style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 8pt" onMouseOver=''''mOver()'''''''' onMouseDown=''''document.myForm.button.value="Bine..."'''' onClick=''''window.location="http://www.talente.ro/talente/muzica/padre/default.htm"'''' onMouseOut=''''mOut()''''>
<input type=button name=button1 value=" Talente " style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 8pt" onMouseOver=''''mOver1()'''''''' onMouseDown=''''document.myForm.button1.value="Bine..."''''

[Charles]

Assuming the frame in question is named Fred:

<form action="http://www.talente.ro/talente/muzica/padre/default.htm" target="Fred">
<div><input type="submit" value="Home"></div>
</form>

If you use Dave Clark's method then your page will fail one in ten times.

[khaki]

... or the quote could just be:

Develop for the 90% and let the other 10% decide if they want to continue to exclude themselves.

Coca-Cola makes Coke for the 90%. For the other 10% it makes Sprite.

Those who elect to drink Sprite shouldn't be determining the flavor of Coke for the rest of us.

(then again, I drink the Dew, so I should probably stay out of this discussion altogether. wink)

Stir well, and serve
k

[khaki]

Oh... and I do relaize that you (Charles) readily offer the non-Javascript solution, so it's not like I'm looking to be disrespectful to you.

I just don't understand the "evil" about Javascript that causes 10% of users from accepting it (but I'll listen).

Javascript enabled (naively or otherwise)
k

[Charles]

The problem is that among that 10% are people who cannot use JavaScript because of their disabilities. There's no onmouseover event when the user isn't using a mouse and dynamic content just doesn't work when a Braille or audio browser is presenting the page sequentially. That is why some governments require certain web sites to be accesible. (And yes, the USA has one of those governments. See http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt.)

[BilEde]

Re javascript and accessibility - the problem is not to do with Javascript but with web authors who do not make use of the alt, longdesc, title and altkeys attributes and use tables for large scale formatting rather than CSS. The accessibilty subject is one that I had to research for my employers web-site because of a complaint received from a visually handicapped person. I experimented with a number of different user-agents (as the specialist browsers are referred to) and none of them had a problem with javascript, including free distributed ones but the free ones hit a wall with frames. The problem with javascript is that if an image which is really a link that is run by javascript does not have a suitable description in the alt tab there is no way the disabled person knows it does anything. If they do know that pressing the return key ran the script and loaded the page.
The WAI standard makes it clear that user agents should be able to properly browse pages provided the above attributes are there.
If anyone has scripts disabled its because of their own personal choice and not accessibility.

[khaki]

I would be very interested to hear from other members of this forum who DO in fact have knowledge regarding accessibility issues - and not just the anti-Javascript activists who constantly offer the “10%” argument in every post (because failing to upgrade a browser, or turning Javascript off, does not in and of itself constitute a valid physical disability).

I myself am not insensitive to the disabled (quite the contrary) - and I would rather include all forward thinking individuals regardless of their physical disability, But at the same time, I'd like to know that the arguments used against Javascript are legitimate, and not based solely on personal or philosophical agendas.

This particular forum (Javascript) exists. So if the anti-Javascript Front has a problem with Javascript, they should probably take it up with the "coffee maker" and steer clear of this particular forum.

I myself come here for information - and if that information consists of constructive suggestions for assisting the physically disabled, I am more than happy to use that information to develop for ALL users.

Unfortunately I keep hearing about the 10% who cannot (or do not) use Javascript. Is it the position of the anti-Javascript Front that 10% of internet users are physically disabled in a manner that prevents them from properly viewing a Javascript enhanced site?

It's either about accessibility or it isn't. Can we please stop using the physically disabled as a pawn in the anti-Javascript agenda? Personally, I find it offensive. VERY OFFENSIVE!

So please... can we have some grown-up discussions about this issue and stop the madness of berating those who are here to seek help, and those who are here to offer help. Because if the underlying issue is NOT about accessibility for the physically disabled, then it is unconscionable to use them in such a despicable manner.

I suppose that I am a bit tired right now (and therefore I’m a bit cranky as well), but I can no longer sit quietly as time after time I observe the physically disabled being used as a rallying-cry by those who have shown little true compassion for their plight.

The bottom line is:
How can we develop to include everybody who wishes to be included.
NOT how do we pacify those who wish to exclude themselves.

I remain…
Javascript enabled and supportive of the physically disabled
k

[meow]

JavaScript doesn't make a page less accessible. Sloppy authors do.

I think the best example is opening pop-ups using the javascript pseudo protocol instead of an event handler.

Compare:

<a href="javascript: window.open('http://example.com')">
<a href="http://example.com" onclick="window.open(this.href); return false">

Not to speak of DHTML menus that don't work at all w/o js. How hard is it to at least provide normal links within noscript tags?

Besides, the largest part of users with javascript disabled are probably using a machine at a company/institution/school that has decided to disable js or kill it at the firewall. They cannot turn it on. Home users seldom disable js. Disabled users may or may not be able to benefit from js.

Text browsers, search engines and a lot of other devices aren't able to follow javascript only links. So don't create javascript only links. Use javascript but don't rely on it.

[khaki]

When considering the following statement:

Besides, the largest part of users with javascript disabled are probably using a machine at a company/institution/school that has decided to disable js or kill it at the firewall. They cannot turn it on. Home users seldom disable js.

Is the developer who uses Javascript (the non-sloppy kind) responsible for preventing accessability to the physically disabled, or is it the company/institution/school that is purposely disabling or killing Javascript which is responsible for causing the inaccessability?

Either (non-sloppy) Javascript is accepted (meaning those who disable it are violating accessability laws) or Javascript should be not be an enable-able browser feature at all.

If Javascript is determined to be an accepted method for web development, then it is not the developer who should carry the burden of the innaccessability issues (aside from the responsibility to not be "sloppy" about doing so).

So this issue either lands in the lap of the browser folks or those that elect to disable Javascript. The developer is caught in the middle.

It's 1:30 am (NY time).
Time for sweet dreams.
k

[meow]

No it doesn't. JavaScript isn't the cake. It's cream on the cake. So is CSS. It's our job to see to it that everyone can eat the cake even if they don't get the cream.

Who should be blamed when Google can't index our pages? :D

[BilEde]

I think that that making full use of the alt etc. attributes would go a long way to meeting the needs of disabled users and this is really just good practice and is not complicated at all. However in order to meet the WAI standard set by the w3 consortium a site needs to have a noscripts and noframes alternative, it doesn't mean that they can't be used. Most pages can be made to be navigable quite easily anyway so some alternative pages for say main navivgation pages in a frame should not be too taxing. The browsers used by the disabled are not he easiest to follow anyway so missing out all the images on such a page and making sure the text described what you are trying to portray in a straightforward way would be a good alternative for those who can't see all the special effects anyway.
Incidentally the WAI encourages the use of CSS scripts and does not like the use of tables for layout rather than presentation of data.
The number of disabled web users could be a proportionatly higher percentage of visitors than the general population as they may be more dependant on the web for getting information, shopping etc if they have difficulty in getting out. Also the western population is getting older on average so more users are likely to be having problems with failing eyesight etc. So they are potentialy a large number of users and web designers need to keep accessibility in mind, especially if they are an e-commerce site or providing public services. Here in the UK it has been legaly established that web-sites are included in the Disability Discrimination Acts. Though private sites will likely have some leeway professional sites could find themselves in trobule.

Bill

[Charles]

BilEde,

I'd ready to accept that I'm wrong about JavaScript and accessibility except that your observations run contrary to everything else that I've read. And those same WAI Accessibility standards require that web authors 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
For example, ensure that links that trigger scripts work when scripts are turned off or not supported (e.g., do not use "javascript:" as the link target). If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint 11.4. Refer also to guideline 1.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scriptsAnd note that's a Priority 1 guideline, something that you must do to make a page accessible.

It's important to keep in mind that there are different kinds of disabilities. While screen readers have some limited facility with some aspects of JavaScript, persons with certain cognitive disabilities cannot have things flashing or moving around on the screen and persons with certain physical disabilities have difficulty moving between windows. These users need to be able safely disable JavaScript. The US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Guidelines have a decent review of what JavaScript uses work with Screen readers, but it was written in June of 2001. That was a bit before DHTML became an issue and everything that I've read that address the issue indicates that it just cannot work. Think about it. If the screen reader is presenting one part of the page, and the script changes some other part of the page, How will the user know? The reader isn't reading the changed part of the page. (See http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(l) for the US DOJ discussion of JavaSCript and screen readers.)

Khaki has opined that If Javascript is determined to be an accepted method for web development, then it is not the developer who should carry the burden of the innaccessability issues (aside from the responsibility to not be "sloppy" about doing so). and that's quite true. It's just that, as I've noted above, the standard is that you must make sure that your page works as well with JavaScript as without. It's not up to us to decide what makes a page accessible. That's a job for the experts and the experts have spoken.

And as meow has pointed out, this does not mean that we ought to eschew JavaScript from an authoring prospective. One would be putting an undue burden on one's client's server if one didn't validate the form client side. You also need to validate it server side, but that's no big deal. This seems to drive Mr. Clark nuts. He cannot seem to understand that the problem isn't JavaScript but how it's integrated with the rest of the page. Sometimes you simply ought not to use it. Sometimes you just need to be a little careful how you use it and sometimes there's nothing wrong with it at all. It's rather like a man having sex with a married woman. It's all well and good as long as she's his wife.

[khalidali63]

I think charles is right in always quoting that " 1 in 10 times JavaScript will fail".
In my understanding a forums only use is to educate people while helping them on issues,and thats exactly what charles did.But "some" immature people take it personal as they still have the mentality of junior high, and try to be macho man and feel insulted as if they are the "omni intellectual".
Let it go guys.Charles did have a point as he always does on this issue and start helping others rather then quarreling like brats

I just hope that with this I have not stepped on some's tail now..

:-)

cheers

Khalid

[linnie]

Originally posted by khalidali63
I think charles is right in always quoting that " 1 in 10 times JavaScript will fail".
It's not that Charles says it, it's how he says it, jerk! Your comments make you sound like you are a child yourself.
Originally posted by Charles
This seems to drive Mr. Clark nuts. He cannot seem to understand that the problem isn't JavaScript but how it's integrated with the rest of the page.
I don't know what your problem is, Charles, but it's quite obvious to me that you don't understand Mr. Clark's complaint at all. What's obvious is that it is rude to single out people responding instead of answering the direct issue at hand. I've observed that even when you insult other people (by the way you respond) you come across as being very arrogant. In reading various posts on these forums, it appears that you do not have a good self-image (since you constantly have to put down others). There's no reason to insult people with your answers. Just answer the question and let it go. You can always say your opinion, but stop the insults as though other answers are incorrect! They are not.

In my opinion, you're both jerks, so grow up and stop cutting down the answers of others. I am sure I'm not the only one who will appreciate not having to wade through your garbage to get to a legitimate answer.

Lin

[khaki]

Lin could not be more correct!
There was an intelligent (although feisty! lol) dialog taking place here at one time.

Hey Khalid - You say this:

But "some" immature people take it personal as they still have the mentality of junior high, and try to be macho man and feel insulted as if they are the "omni intellectual".

Then you say this:
start helping others rather then quarreling like brats

I just hope that with this I have not stepped on some's tail now.

Thanks for your intellectual take on the subject Khalid (I’m sure it will be published in textbooks everywhere!).

You've been helpful to others in the past, but I'm afraid that this time you have assumed the role of an antagonist.

Maybe Charles and Dave should take their differences off-line, but your little contribution has done more to escalate this than anything else. So your "Let it go guys comment rings rather hollow with me.

Perhaps we can get this topic back on track and stop the madness. I am SICK of hearing people use the accessibility/physically disabled as weapons against whom they disagree!
It’s either about accessibility or it’s about something else.Decide which it is and SHOW SOME RESPECT!

Formerly silly, now just mad…
k

[khaki]

... by the way, does anybody else wonder what poor Petro thinks about all of this?

( a butterfly flaps it's wings in Madagascar...)

I think we all need to lighten-up. I'll start.

I'm sorry if I personally offended anyone. The issue is real however (for many people), so let's try to stay on-point if we can.

Signed,
a very contrite...
k

[Charles]

linnie,

I didn't "single out" Mr. Clark in any improper way by criticising the content of one of his posts and by identifying it as his. As to my other comment, it needs to be understood in the context of some other posts. Mr. Clark has been, for several days, on a tirade because I sometimes post items that use JavaScript and yet at other times I state strongly that JavaScript ought not to be used in a certain instance. If I have thus stepped over the line then I apologize. I only ask that Mr. Clark cease his abusiveness and that he stop taking criticism of his posts as attacks upon his person.

[Charles]

Originally posted by khaki
... by the way, does anybody else wonder what poor Petro thinks about all of this?Petro's further thoughts on the matter can be found at http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3824. And please note that he is rather emphatic about being "viewed by as many users as is possible."

[khaki]

Yeah... I saw that (I'm glad he's getting help after all that we put him through. He was so sweet in re-asking his question that I felt HORRIBLE for having forgotten about him).

Do think that if I tried really hard that I could make you laugh (or even smile) Charles?

(or am I just never gonna win that battle?)
k

[linnie]

Originally posted by Charles
I didn't "single out" Mr. Clark in any improper way by criticizing the content of one of his posts and by identifying it as his.
If you truly think that, then I think that you are rather blind yourself. I agree 100% with Mr. Clark's assessment of what the "more considerate and responsible reply would have been."
Originally posted by Charles
I only ask that Mr. Clark cease his abusiveness and that he stop taking criticism of his posts as attacks upon his person.
I agree that Mr. Clark is lashing out at you, but who can blame him for reacting to your personal attacks? You make it personal by using a person's name.

Lin

[khaki]

I don't know about anybody else, but I can REALLY feel the love in this room (lol).

(I guess that further venting is required before the cooling-off phase can begin)

By the way, I'm trying to work on an animated gif over here, but this thread keeps pulling me away from my work.
There is no question in my mind that this thread is far more animated than anything that I can whip-up in Fireworks! (ha!).

anxiously awaiting the next interruption...
k

[pyro]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to post here... :)

First of all, I think one thing that very few are choosing to realize here is that when Charles disagrees with the way someone chooses to use javascript, he nearly always provides a better way of doing the task. Often times, people (unfortunatly, myself included) use javascript in a way that causes it to break for those without javascript, when it could be easily programmed to work for those without...I think we should all appreciate the oppurtunity to learn a better way to program.

That being said, I do agree that often times, Charles gets a bit emphatic about his points, and there would be nicer ways of pointing out the method that will work for both javascript and non-javascript users. I'm not sure that this is one of those situations. He simply said Dave Clark's method, when perhaps he should have said the javascript method. It's a little thing...

Cheers. :D

[linnie]

...and little things mean a lot in a happy world! :)

Lin

[pyro]

Originally posted by linnie
...and little things mean a lot in a happy world! :) In a happy world people can overlook little things. :p

[khaki]

...thanks pyro (my hero)

[Charles]

Originally posted by pyro
[H]e should have said the javascript method. It's a little thing... Among persons with a certain type of education it is common and a mark of respect to use a person's name when referring to that person's ideas and writings.

[linnie]

Originally posted by pyro
In a happy world people can overlook little things. :p
Apparently, I misunderstood your "little thing" reference because you definitely misunderstood mine. :p To me, the "little thing" is not in what Charles said, the little thing (i.e., the things that make for a happier world) is in Charles making the effort to say the polite thing instead of the rude thing. ;)

Lin

[pyro]

Originally posted by khaki
...thanks pyro (my hero) <grin>

Originally posted by Charles
Among persons with a certain type of education it is common and a mark of respect to use a person's name when referring to that person's ideas and writings.And I personally wouldn't have gotten upset over your post for that reason. ;)

[pyro]

Originally posted by linnie
Apparently, I misunderstood your "little thing" reference because you definitely misunderstood mine. :pSorry about that. What I meant was that the little thing was "Dave Clark's method" vs. "the javascript method". And I'd say that it's unfare to Charles to say that he is the only one saying rude things in this thread...Don't you agree?

[linnie]

Originally posted by Charles
Among persons with a certain type of education it is common and a mark of respect to use a person's name when referring to that person's ideas and writings.
See, you can't do anything but be insulting with a comment like that. It is not a mark of respect to use a person's name as part of a criticism -- especially when that criticism is undeserved by the person. If you don't like certain uses of Javascript, say so. However, the polite thing is to not use people's names when referring to your dislikes.

But obviously I'm wasting my time on this post because it falls on deaf ears.

Lin

[Charles]

And I'm saying that you wrong me to accuse me of being rude when I'm being respectful or to take me to task for following the rules of discourse as it ithey are followed in academia.

[khaki]

hey pyro, I thought you already fixed this.

hmmmm.... maybe you shouldn't have gone against your better judgement after all.

Wanna blow this out-of-control taco-stand and grab a few ****tails (wink)?
k

[pyro]

Originally posted by khaki
Wanna blow this out-of-control taco-stand and grab a few ****tails (wink)?...lol. :D

Originally posted by Dave Clark
Of course! Things always go downhill when the first person says something so inconsiderate of others (as Charles did) and is so arrogant as to refuse to see or admit that it would have been more polite to say it differently.I know how that goes... :) I was simply trying to point out to linnie that Charles wasn't the only one being rude here.

As I said earlier, I agree with you in that Charles could be a bit nicer in the way he points out his perspective.

[Nevermore]

One of my friends is disabled. He uses a very scaled-down browser. He can still tell when javascript is being used, however, and can still use it. Perhaps people who dont know what they are talking about should give it up.

Oh, and I agree with Dave. I think that Charles does always give a good implementation, but he could go about it a little more nicely.

[khaki]

OK.
Now I'm REALLY mad!

I invite pyro to sip (or slam!) ****tails with me and he'd rather stick around here and argue with the rest of you!

All I know is if I invited Batman for ****tails , we'd be back in the batcave by now!

But seriously! I've had enough of this. Charles, can't you say anything nice without qualifying it with some additional "shot" at Dave.

I've been trying to appeal to you on some (ANY!) level for the better part of the day. But you no sooner say something that begins as civil, when you then negate it by saying something even more arrogant than before.

That's fine! Have a fued with Dave Clark. You can also maintain your very high opinion of yourself.
But I have been spending the entire day TRYING to find common-ground with you, and you have proven to be IMPOSSIBLE!

That's it for me! I am OUTTA here! Pyro... the bus is leaving and I'm buying the drinks. Whisk me away to the pyrocave or lose me forever!
k

[pyro]

Originally posted by khaki
I invite pyro to sip (or slam!) ****tails with me and he'd rather stick around here and argue with the rest of you!Umm...I'm not trying to argue. I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread. Anyhow, with your title being "Jersey Girl" I'm guessing you're from out east? It'd be a bit of a hike for a drink from where I'm at. :) I'm guessing that there'd be some other things that you'd be surprised to hear about me... :D

[khaki]

uh-oh.
better go see what that's all about.
nobody write anything until i get back.....

[Charles]

Originally posted by cijori
Perhaps people who dont know what they are talking about should give it up. I completely agree; and I've often made the same point myself. It is, after all, as pointless for us to figure out on our own what one needs to do to make a page accessible as it is to extrapolate the needs of all disabled users from the needs of one. And the people who do know, the people who set the standards have written:6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
For example, ensure that links that trigger scripts work when scripts are turned off or not supported (e.g., do not use "javascript:" as the link target). If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint 11.4.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts

[khalidali63]

Originally posted by linnie
....... it's how he says it, jerk! Your comments make you sound like you are a child yourself.
Lin

And I rest my case.

Khalid

[khalidali63]

Originally posted by khaki
..........
There is no question in my mind that this thread is far more animated than anything that I can whip-up in Fireworks! (ha!).

anxiously awaiting the next interruption...
k ..

lol...could not agree more

Khalid

[Charles]

In that thread(http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3837) two methods of opening a window were being discussed. Both use JavaScript but in different ways. The phrase "a JavaScript method" would refer to both. It's not unreasonable, unkind or in any way objectionable to refer to the method that I proposed as "my method", nor would I have been remiss in referring to the other method as "cijori's" in the context of the discussion. (Outside of the discussion I can only use those handles if they properly refer to the persons who first used those methods.) I think that you are reading things into posts that are not there.

[Charles]

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that it is in some way incorrect to draw the readers attention to the particular post that I am commenting upon?

[khaki]

Can I PLEASE just make an appeal to the both of you (Dave & Charles) to stop the back-and-forth?

Can you PLEASE find some point upon which you can both agree?

It no longer is a matter of who is right and who is wrong - because you will both battle yourselves to the death to gain the higher ground.

In real battle it is imperative that you have respect for your enemy - it is known as the "warriors code". Niether of you seems willing to acknowledge the other's virtues, and therefore you will defeat yourselves more easily than you will ever defeat the other.

There is a tremendous amount of respect for the two of you in this forum. Many people who come here are are so happy to have either (or both) of you help them with their questions. But this is not good.

When two super-powers decide to destroy each other, the entire world suffers. Maybe you guys won't ever be able to agree on anything, but can you at least agree to maintain a level of decency towards each other .... just for the sake of the rest of us - if not yourselves?

I am so saddened that the two of you (and me!, and others) have spent so much time battling and disrespecting each other over something that will ultimately not be resolved by anyone but the two of you - and neither of you is willing to find the words that would start a positive dialog.

Please.... please.... think of all of the people that you have helped, and how that help has lifted each of you to such a respected status in this forum. It is far easier to destroy that respect than it was to earn it. So...

p l e a s e ....

... think about what kind of person you are - and decide if all of this is worth it.
Life is too valuable to waste on matters which will mean nothing...........................
... will mean nothing to you someday.
k

[Charles]

Dave,

As you will not be replying I will not ask if you think drawing attention to other posts is improper, what you think the "quote" button on this board is for. But I will make the point that there is one very great difference between you and I. It was said of a teacher of mine, after his death, that he was truly happy to be proved wrong. I try to live up to that example. That's why I don't, as a rule, reply to back channel requests for help. I want people to criticise me. It's how I learn. When I have thanked you for correcting me I have not done so rhetorically. I am grateful for what you have given me. But in this matter, you are simply wrong.

[khaki]

... and not 5 minutes later...


:confused:
k

[linnie]

Khaki,

Your comments are not helping, in my opinion. I believe they were winding down the thread. No need to add comments that may strike it up again. :)

Lin

[khaki]

it takes a lot for me to give up.
that's my flaw.
but i know when i've been beat.
sad though.
nice to get to share a post with you though.
maybe better circumstances next time.
k

[linnie]

Originally posted by khaki
it takes a lot for me to give up.
that's my flaw.
Okay, let me try this again! :)
To me, NOT giving up is not a flaw, neither is giving up. It's just like Kenny Rogers said: You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

BTW, I've seen you've unmasked and showing your full face now! :)

Lin

[khaki]

I guess we could have used Kenny around here today (I got myself all upset for nothing, it seems. Now I'm emotionally broke!).

Yeah. khaki unmasked.
I got tired of hearing people say that my picture is the face of Dr. Aki (or whatever her name is).

It seems like computer generated girls get taken more seriously than I do around here (poor, poor me. lol)
k

[khaki]

Oh, I'm so sorry to jump right back in again, but [SWR]Ribeyed has just informed me that I've been promoted (Webmaster!).

I'm so excited!
I will try to be the best Webmaster in the forum!
I really am soooo excited!

(all that nonesense about not being taken seriously.... never mind!)
k
Webmaster!

[linnie]

:) Are you talking about Final Fantasy movie with Dr. Aki Ross? If you are, I saw that movie and I'd say the only reason you may have looked like her was the coloring of the photo and the dark hair. In my opinion anyway... For me, it would be hard to make a comparison when you only see an eye. :)

Lin

[khaki]

Yeah, well I guess the guys saw it a different way.
It got to the point that I was answering questions about my avatar as often as we get asked about how to hide your source code form being seen on the browser (at least a couple of times a week).

Thanks for providing her last name (Ross. Hmmff. I knew that once, but I never remember it. I never saw the movie - never even heard of it, in fact. Now that's ALL I seem to hear! sheesh!). I'll be sure to update my sig accordingly).

So linnie, you wanna give us a glance at one of your eyes (at least?).
k

[BilEde]

I think Charles and I have got a bit at cross purposes. I thought that I had stated that the WAI didn't bar Javascript but that there should be an alternate method as well as the JS. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear - I must stop writing replies late at night!
This subject is important to me at the moment because I've got a meeting with my firms web developers on thursday when we will have to agree what changes need to be made and argue out the cost.
Some suggestions I'm putting forward
Re pages that open in another frame I would consider that the describing text should make that clear. I have already told the developers that the alt attribute text should say that the page will open in the frame named XXX. I've suggested that the JS is left on various forms on the sites but that a hidden input is added and the validating JS amended to include changing the value of this. If JS is disabled the value will be unchanged so the ASP script can detect that the data needs to be validated. Most forms will be validated so this can be skipped for those. Mouseover effects will be labeled as 'eyecandy' in the alt, as this just adds visualy to the site - not running those scripts will have no ill effect.
In some pages however the js is actually important to the site security. For those the <noscripts> tags might have to be a statement that javascript must be enabled for the site to function in those areas, with phone contact details.
I would certainly be interested to hear any other suggestions and workarounds that anyone has

[Charles]

It sounds like you're off to a good start. JavaScript based security is worthless so I'd get rid of it but client side validation is a good thing when the server side script is there to back it up.

You need to determine what standard of accesibility your firm wants or needs. You should consult an attorney, but it's my understanding that the accesibility laws where you are require WAI level A. I'd recommend level Double A but I'm not paying the bills.

Once you know what standard you want to follow then you can go down the check list at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html. Follow the links for detailed discussion of how to satisfy any of the checkpoints. And if you need something real simple for the simple boss then print out a copy of the Quick Tips at http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/#QuickTipsImages & animations: Use the alt attribute to describe the function of each visual.
Image maps. Use the client-side map and text for hotspots.
Multimedia. Provide captioning and transcripts of audio, and descriptions of video.
Hypertext links. Use text that makes sense when read out of context. For example, avoid "click here."
Page organization. Use headings, lists, and consistent structure. Use CSS for layout and style where possible.
Graphs & charts. Summarize or use the longdesc attribute.
Scripts, applets, & plug-ins. Provide alternative content in case active features are inaccessible or unsupported.
Frames. Use the noframes element and meaningful titles.
Tables. Make line-by-line reading sensible. Summarize.
Check your work. Validate. Use tools, checklist, and guidelines at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG