Discussion:
Website validity and accessibility tests Aust UK and USA sites
(too old to reply)
James
2007-06-18 13:56:49 UTC
Permalink
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites for
W3C validity and accessibility features.

Australian university web sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html

Australian government web site tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html

USA sites tested including target
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html

UK sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html

Results
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Results.html

Study design
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/WebSurvey.html

Common validation and accessibility errors
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/CommonErrors.html


The Webmaster

Tim
Harlan Messinger
2007-06-18 17:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites for
W3C validity and accessibility features.
[snip]

You mention "alt tags". There's no such thing as alt tags (which would
be <alt ...>. There IS an alt attribute, and its value may be called alt
text or alternate text.

Where are there images without alt text?

Where on the US Department of Education site are you expecting there to
be a longdesc attribute but not finding one?

How does accessibility require the existence of one or another META tag,
including, in particular, copyright date?

The US ed.gov site does so have a skip navigation link, pointing to
#skipnav1.
James
2007-06-19 10:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Thanks James for the correction, You are right it does have a skip
navigation link and missing alt tags have been added since I last
reviewed this site, sorry my mistake, it has been updated.

If a browser or screen reader gets to any page, the meta tags can
provide a link to other pages, as well as links to important pages like
search, home and the accessibility statement. Getting to any page in a
relative directory which uses title tags in the header allows easy
access to that entire site not just the page found.

Tim.
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
[snip]
You mention "alt tags". There's no such thing as alt tags (which would
be <alt ...>. There IS an alt attribute, and its value may be called alt
text or alternate text.
Where are there images without alt text?
Where on the US Department of Education site are you expecting there to
be a longdesc attribute but not finding one?
How does accessibility require the existence of one or another META tag,
including, in particular, copyright date?
The US ed.gov site does so have a skip navigation link, pointing to
#skipnav1.
Harlan Messinger
2007-06-19 15:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Thanks James for the correction, You are right it does have a skip
navigation link and missing alt tags have been added since I last
reviewed this site, sorry my mistake, it has been updated.
If a browser or screen reader gets to any page, the meta tags can
provide a link to other pages, as well as links to important pages like
search, home and the accessibility statement. Getting to any page in a
relative directory which uses title tags in the header allows easy
access to that entire site not just the page found.
Almost any website handles navigation explicitly in the body of the
page--and why wouldn't they?
Tim
2007-06-20 02:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Any browser is not a screen reader like Jaws.
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by James
Thanks James for the correction, You are right it does have a skip
navigation link and missing alt tags have been added since I last
reviewed this site, sorry my mistake, it has been updated.
If a browser or screen reader gets to any page, the meta tags can
provide a link to other pages, as well as links to important pages
like search, home and the accessibility statement. Getting to any page
in a relative directory which uses title tags in the header allows
easy access to that entire site not just the page found.
Almost any website handles navigation explicitly in the body of the
page--and why wouldn't they?
Harlan Messinger
2007-06-20 15:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Tim wrote:
[top-posting corrected]
Post by Tim
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by James
Thanks James for the correction, You are right it does have a skip
navigation link and missing alt tags have been added since I last
reviewed this site, sorry my mistake, it has been updated.
If a browser or screen reader gets to any page, the meta tags can
provide a link to other pages, as well as links to important pages
like search, home and the accessibility statement. Getting to any
page in a relative directory which uses title tags in the header
allows easy access to that entire site not just the page found.
Almost any website handles navigation explicitly in the body of the
page--and why wouldn't they?
Any browser is not a screen reader like Jaws.
Jaws reads navigation links just as well as any other links. It even
tends to read them early in the page, where they are located, which is
why accessibility calls for the "skip navigation" link for those who
*don't* want to run through the navigation over and over again.

So using Jaws doesn't make having META tags for navigation any less
redundant.
John Hosking
2007-06-18 18:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites for
W3C validity and accessibility features.
Accessibility, my butt. Here's what I get to "access" when I click your
links (FF, Opera, IE6):

"Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.

Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files
for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to
access password protected files?

Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly excluded
from access."

Of course, I *can't* contact the manager at hereticpress, as the Web
site is inaccessible to me.
Post by James
The Webmaster
Tim
So are you named James or Tim? Or something else?
--
John (my real name)
James
2007-06-19 10:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Contact me by email John, not from my website, it is not hard to guess
what the email address is the webmaster at hereticpress.com

I do ban many servers which host spam email collectors or maybe your IP
is close to a range that has abused access in the past, sorry but if I
do not ban some bad bots my site will be reproduced elsewhere.

I could search through server logs for your IP but that is too time
consuming, if you send me your IP I could allow access, but then again
maybe your "butt" does not inspire me to do that.

Tim to my friends James to email harvesting bots.
Post by John Hosking
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
Accessibility, my butt. Here's what I get to "access" when I click your
"Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.
Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files
for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to
access password protected files?
Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly excluded
from access."
Of course, I *can't* contact the manager at hereticpress, as the Web
site is inaccessible to me.
Post by James
The Webmaster
Tim
So are you named James or Tim? Or something else?
John Hosking
2007-06-20 22:05:03 UTC
Permalink
James wrote:
[top-posting sort of corrected]
Post by John Hosking
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
Accessibility, my butt. Here's what I get to "access" when I click
"Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.
Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files
for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to
access password protected files?
Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly
excluded from access."
Of course, I *can't* contact the manager at hereticpress, as the Web
site is inaccessible to me.
Contact me by email John, not from my website, it is not hard to guess what the email address is the webmaster at hereticpress.com
I must admit I don't understand this sentence, Tim. (You have an e-mail
address on your NG posts, but I don't see the need to go to e-mail
anyway. I wouldn't have guessed "webmaster@" , though, when told to
"contact the manager".)
I do ban many servers which host spam email collectors or maybe your IP is close to a range that has abused access in the past, sorry but if I do not ban some bad bots my site will be reproduced elsewhere.
"Close" to a range? Sounds like a pretty inexact way to keep the public
from accessing your site.
I could search through server logs for your IP but that is too time consuming, if you send me your IP I could allow access, but then again maybe your "butt" does not inspire me to do that.
My IP at this moment is 85.2.171.101. My ISP, Bluewin, gives me a
(usually) different one every time I log on.

85.2.171.101 is not a brand new number, it's been used. I admit I don't
know who had it last. I don't know where it's been. It seems to work for
my purposes, with your site being the obvious exception. But maybe a
previous user tried to access password-protected files. Presumably, your
password protection prevented them from doing so, so I don't see why I
should suffer.

How can you tell that somebody (using my current IP address, or
something "close" to it) was downloading files for offline viewing? What
constitutes "too many" of them?

My browser can't be unidentified, as I believe Firefox, Internet
Explorer and Opera are all not only identified, but well known. So it
must be one of the other problems your error message mentioned.

I don't mean to sound as confrontational or obnoxious as I probably do
here, and I have to confess that I've spent more time on these two posts
than I probably would at your site (I didn't get the impression that
Harlan was very impressed). But it strikes me as weird as well as
mildly annoying that I would get such a non-useful message as punishment
for having been interested in your content. :-(
--
John
asdf
2007-06-21 04:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hosking
[top-posting sort of corrected]
Post by James
Post by John Hosking
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites for
W3C validity and accessibility features.
Accessibility, my butt. Here's what I get to "access" when I click your
"Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.
Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many files
for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be trying to
access password protected files?
Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly excluded
from access."
Of course, I *can't* contact the manager at hereticpress, as the Web
site is inaccessible to me.
Contact me by email John, not from my website, it is not hard to guess
what the email address is the webmaster at hereticpress.com
I must admit I don't understand this sentence, Tim. (You have an e-mail
address on your NG posts, but I don't see the need to go to e-mail anyway.
manager".)
Post by James
I do ban many servers which host spam email collectors or maybe your IP
is close to a range that has abused access in the past, sorry but if I do
not ban some bad bots my site will be reproduced elsewhere.
"Close" to a range? Sounds like a pretty inexact way to keep the public
from accessing your site.
Post by James
I could search through server logs for your IP but that is too time
consuming, if you send me your IP I could allow access, but then again
maybe your "butt" does not inspire me to do that.
My IP at this moment is 85.2.171.101. My ISP, Bluewin, gives me a
(usually) different one every time I log on.
85.2.171.101 is not a brand new number, it's been used. I admit I don't
know who had it last. I don't know where it's been. It seems to work for
my purposes, with your site being the obvious exception. But maybe a
previous user tried to access password-protected files. Presumably, your
password protection prevented them from doing so, so I don't see why I
should suffer.
How can you tell that somebody (using my current IP address, or something
"close" to it) was downloading files for offline viewing? What constitutes
"too many" of them?
My browser can't be unidentified, as I believe Firefox, Internet Explorer
and Opera are all not only identified, but well known. So it must be one
of the other problems your error message mentioned.
I don't mean to sound as confrontational or obnoxious as I probably do
here, and I have to confess that I've spent more time on these two posts
than I probably would at your site (I didn't get the impression that
Harlan was very impressed). But it strikes me as weird as well as mildly
annoying that I would get such a non-useful message as punishment for
having been interested in your content. :-(
--
John
Yep... banning dynamically assigned IP addresses is a "VERY BAD IDEA INDEED"
:)
James
2007-06-21 10:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hosking
[top-posting sort of corrected]
Post by James
Post by John Hosking
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
Accessibility, my butt. Here's what I get to "access" when I click
"Your permission to access Heretic Press has been revoked by the webmaster.
Your browser may be unidentified or you are downloading too many
files for offline viewing. Someone from your IP address might be
trying to access password protected files?
Contact the manager at hereticpress, if you have been unfairly
excluded from access."
Of course, I *can't* contact the manager at hereticpress, as the Web
site is inaccessible to me.
Contact me by email John, not from my website, it is not hard to guess
what the email address is the webmaster at hereticpress.com
I must admit I don't understand this sentence, Tim. (You have an e-mail
address on your NG posts, but I don't see the need to go to e-mail
"contact the manager".)
Post by James
I do ban many servers which host spam email collectors or maybe your
IP is close to a range that has abused access in the past, sorry but
if I do not ban some bad bots my site will be reproduced elsewhere.
"Close" to a range? Sounds like a pretty inexact way to keep the public
from accessing your site.
Post by James
I could search through server logs for your IP but that is too time
consuming, if you send me your IP I could allow access, but then again
maybe your "butt" does not inspire me to do that.
My IP at this moment is 85.2.171.101. My ISP, Bluewin, gives me a
(usually) different one every time I log on.
85.2.171.101 is not a brand new number, it's been used. I admit I don't
know who had it last. I don't know where it's been. It seems to work for
my purposes, with your site being the obvious exception. But maybe a
previous user tried to access password-protected files. Presumably, your
password protection prevented them from doing so, so I don't see why I
should suffer.
How can you tell that somebody (using my current IP address, or
something "close" to it) was downloading files for offline viewing? What
constitutes "too many" of them?
My browser can't be unidentified, as I believe Firefox, Internet
Explorer and Opera are all not only identified, but well known. So it
must be one of the other problems your error message mentioned.
I don't mean to sound as confrontational or obnoxious as I probably do
here, and I have to confess that I've spent more time on these two posts
than I probably would at your site (I didn't get the impression that
Harlan was very impressed). But it strikes me as weird as well as
mildly annoying that I would get such a non-useful message as punishment
for having been interested in your content. :-(
Thanks for your patience John, sorry for mildly annoying you. It was not
the IP I banned but another Bluewin customer deny from .cust.bluewin.ch

Please don't take it as meaning to punish anyone, you would be suprised
how many religious web heads try to silence and hack a heretics site, it
is basic security which will be misplaced in about 5% of cases of
dynamically assigned dialup IPs, but the 95% denied access are really
bad bots for example many bots from Beijing China, some from Canada and
some US email address collectors like rima-tide.net. There are some
really malicious people out there, those who create nothing and try to
destroy others work. In stopping many of them I do inadvertantly stop
some good people but not very many, please accept my apologies and try
to access the site again if your patience with me has not worn too thin.

What constitutes too much? How about when you open the server log and
see that a client has downloaded a 100 pages and 120MB in a few minutes,
not a human browsing pages, but a bot taking not just header details but
all the content on every page as fast as it can, if this is not stopped
your whole site can be reproduced elsewhere, especially if it uses
relative directories and not absolute full pathways to URLs which
provides other advantages worth keeping, like quicker loading times and
being able to run the site from a CD.

Harlan did correct me on few out-of-date items which I have updated for
the US education department. I have a few differences of opinion with
him regarding the use of URLs in meta tags and maybe other areas as
well, but his advice was sound and appreciated and I acted on his advice
by updating the review.

The most up-to-date page is the Australian University review page which
has been recently peer reviewed by some academics at Australian
universities, whose opinion I respect, even though some others dislike
me for making the review page, saying I am not being "nice". I care more
about telling the truth than being nice.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html

Tim

Harlan Messinger
2007-06-18 19:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites for
W3C validity and accessibility features.
Australian university web sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html
Australian government web site tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
USA sites tested including target
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html
"Heretic Press" appears in rotating, vibrating text, posing a potential
accessibility problem.

Your results table violates accessibility requirements. You're squeezing
two independent data points into each row--one variable and its result,
and then another variable and its result, implying a non-existent
tabular relationship between them.
James
2007-06-19 10:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Harlan, the header "rotating vibrating" graphics are actually
from the stylesheets, there are seven different ones including a text
only option stylesheet number seven has no "vibrating" graphics at all,
a text only viewer does not see them at all, details are in the
accessibility statement.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Access/index.html#skipnav

Yes well I could have mucked around for a month of Sundays trying to
line up divs, but a table seemed approriate for tabular data, there is a
quality being tested and a result for that quality, so I believe the
data is tabular in nature.

Tim
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
Australian university web sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html
Australian government web site tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
USA sites tested including target
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html
"Heretic Press" appears in rotating, vibrating text, posing a potential
accessibility problem.
Your results table violates accessibility requirements. You're squeezing
two independent data points into each row--one variable and its result,
and then another variable and its result, implying a non-existent
tabular relationship between them.
Harlan Messinger
2007-06-19 15:45:01 UTC
Permalink
James/Tim wrote:
[top-posting corrected]
Post by James
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by James
I am continuing tests of Australian, UK and USA government websites
for W3C validity and accessibility features.
Your results table violates accessibility requirements. You're
squeezing two independent data points into each row--one variable and
its result, and then another variable and its result, implying a
non-existent tabular relationship between them.
Yes well I could have mucked around for a month of Sundays trying to
line up divs, but a table seemed approriate for tabular data, there is a
quality being tested and a result for that quality, so I believe the
data is tabular in nature.
The data is tabular in nature. The problem, as I already noted, is that
you have pairs of unrelated data in each row of the table. A table
implies a particular set of relationships in its arrangement of rows an
columns, and your table breaks this. You didn't need to display the data
side by side; in choosing to do so, and in choosing this manner in which
to do it, you broke the meaning of the HTML table. If you're going to
defend this, well, I'm sure plenty of the websites you reviewed have
defenses for the inadequacies that your site lists.
Loading...