• Kalle (unregistered)

    Argh! How ironic isn't this?

  • Strider (unregistered)

    so the WTF is that the accessibility web page requires javascript? meh

  • Eulbobo (unregistered) in reply to Strider

    One of the "first" recommendations for accessibility is the possibility for a website to work without javascript enabled.

    Good try, but it's hard to beat the habits

  • Monkios (cs) in reply to Eulbobo
    Eulbobo:
    One of the "first" recommendations for accessibility is the possibility for a website to work without javascript enabled.

    Good try, but it's hard to beat the habits

    The target attribute isn't included in the anchor element in strict XHTML.

    You can do what this guy did or you can change the DTD for your website to allow the target attribute. Most web developper don't know this.

  • W (unregistered) in reply to Monkios
    Monkios:
    Eulbobo:
    One of the "first" recommendations for accessibility is the possibility for a website to work without javascript enabled.

    Good try, but it's hard to beat the habits

    The target attribute isn't included in the anchor element in strict XHTML.

    You can do what this guy did or you can change the DTD for your website to allow the target attribute. Most web developper don't know this.

    Or you can fuck off with the popups and use a regular link.

  • Martijn van Zal (unregistered)

    I once saw a site where they did all their hyper links in Bar style :)

  • Imroy (cs) in reply to Martijn van Zal
    Martijn van Zal:
    I once saw a site where they did all their hyper links in Bar style :)
    I've seen some like that too. Obviously the web developers didn't use a web browser that uses tabs, because such fake-links totally break tabs. It also breaks web crawlers, so Google is not going to have much past their homepage cached and indexed. Serves them right... :D
  • Robert (unregistered) in reply to Imroy
    Imroy:
    Martijn van Zal:
    I once saw a site where they did all their hyper links in Bar style :)
    I've seen some like that too. Obviously the web developers didn't use a web browser that uses tabs, because such fake-links totally break tabs. It also breaks web crawlers, so Google is not going to have much past their homepage cached and indexed. Serves them right... :D

    Could also be intended...

  • Noah Slater (unregistered)

    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.

    I am a disabled person and I read your site - please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement

  • CP (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater

    That really wasn't the point, Noah. We can't call cell phones "disabled computers". They really are "differently able" computers, and that's what the joke was about.

  • Noah Slater (unregistered)

    No, you are right - it wasn't his major point, the objectionable language was used seriously.

    I quote:

    "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters."

    How would this make you feel as a disabled reader? Alienated? Maybe you will reply "no" but the fact of the matter is that this language distances this site from disabled readers.

    It's subtle, but it's important.

  • Rick (unregistered) in reply to Robert
    Robert:
    Imroy:
    Martijn van Zal:
    I once saw a site where they did all their hyper links in Bar style :)
    I've seen some like that too. Obviously the web developers didn't use a web browser that uses tabs, because such fake-links totally break tabs. It also breaks web crawlers, so Google is not going to have much past their homepage cached and indexed. Serves them right... :D

    Could also be intended...

    Well, if they truly didn't want Google to index their site, there are better ways to accomplish that. Things like robots.txt.

  • Anynomous (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.

    I am a disabled person and I read your site - please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement

    You're right, mentioning handicaps in any way, especially for a story involving accessibility, is totally unacceptable. /sarcasm

    Damnit man, what do you want? You say you're offended at disabilities being ignored then say you're offended about being called 'different.' It's a bit hard to not assume everyone is able bodied if we aren't allowed to even NOTICE disabilities!!!

  • Steve (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.

    I am a disabled person and I read your site - please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement

    Sorry point a makes no sense to me "disabled" (a label you use about yourself) is as much a label indicating difference as "differently abled" is. I see where you're coming from with point b ("we the majority").

  • diaphanein (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    No, you are right - it wasn't his major point, the objectionable language was used seriously.

    I quote:

    "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters."

    How would this make you feel as a disabled reader? Alienated? Maybe you will reply "no" but the fact of the matter is that this language distances this site from disabled readers.

    It's subtle, but it's important.

    I'm offended by your being offended. Since I'm offended by something you did, you must stop it. So, stop being offended. That's how things work in Bizaro land.

  • Noah Slater (unregistered)

    You're right, mentioning handicaps in any way, especially for a story involving accessibility, is totally unacceptable.

    The term "handicaps" is SO offensive I can only assume it was satire.

    You say you're offended at disabilities being ignored

    Can you quote me on that?

    then say you're offended about being called 'different.'

    Yes, and about being mentally segregated from the normal readership of the site.

    Can you imagine if the post read:

    "Anyway, issues with 'differently coloured people' doesn't matter as long as us whites are more dominant."

    Can you imagine reading this as a black man?

    It's just the same...

    It's a bit hard to not assume everyone is able bodied if we aren't allowed to even NOTICE disabilities!!!

    I never asked you not to "notice", instead only:

    a) Not to label, just like "differently coloured persons" b) Not to segregate, just like "us whites"

  • Noah Slater (unregistered) in reply to Steve

    Actually, it depend which model of disability you subscribe to .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability

    I subscribe to the social model in which I am "disabled" by society - whereas to label me as someone "with" a disability is wrong.

  • cyclops (unregistered)

    Am I the only one who thought the phrase "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters." was sarcasm in the context it was used?

  • keen and able (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.

    I am a disabled person and I read your site - please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement

    I'm with Stumpy Joe on this one

  • The MAZZTer (cs)

    Alex clearly did not intend to insult or offend, so drop it. It's one thing when someone purposefully hurts minorities in this matter, it's another when it's done accidentally but the minority makes a big fuss about it. Your disability, whatever it might be, does not excuse your attitude.

  • Noah Slater (unregistered) in reply to cyclops

    Yes, I think you may be right.

  • cyclops (unregistered)

    Am I the only one who thought the phrase "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters." was sarcasm in the context it was used?

  • Noah Slater (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer

    Intention does not get anyone off the hook. It's the collective ignorance of the masses that hurts minorities - not individual malice.

    Anyway, what attitude are you speaking of? Should I be afraid to voice my opinion in case YOU don't like it?

  • SomeoneElse (unregistered) in reply to cyclops
    cyclops:
    Am I the only one who thought the phrase "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters." was sarcasm in the context it was used?

    No, But I long ago learned that most readers of this web site are incapable of recognizing sarcasm, even when it is beating the crap out of them.

  • Noah Slater (unregistered) in reply to keen and able

    Cheers keen and able!

    • Stumpy.
  • KM (unregistered) in reply to Monkios
    Monkios:
    Eulbobo:
    One of the "first" recommendations for accessibility is the possibility for a website to work without javascript enabled.

    Good try, but it's hard to beat the habits

    The target attribute isn't included in the anchor element in strict XHTML.

    You can do what this guy did or you can change the DTD for your website to allow the target attribute. Most web developper don't know this.

    Or you can do it in a standards conforming way by including a real href and an onclick handler: blah

    There's other more sophisticated methods too, but this is a very easy simple example.

  • me (unregistered)

    It's a basic rule of the internet - no matter how obvious you make the sarcasm, someone will take it seriously :D

  • Mike Nuss (unregistered) in reply to cyclops
    cyclops:
    Am I the only one who thought the phrase "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters." was sarcasm in the context it was used?

    Yes, it was pretty obviously a joke. Sheesh.

  • Alcari (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    > You're right, mentioning handicaps in any way, especially for > a story involving accessibility, is totally unacceptable.

    The term "handicaps" is SO offensive I can only assume it was satire.

    Hey, my handicap is 28...why is it offensive? On a more serious note, Handicap simply means "Hindrance" what's the problem with it?

    Noah Slater:
    > It's a bit hard to not assume everyone is able bodied if > we aren't allowed to even NOTICE disabilities!!!

    I never asked you not to "notice", instead only:

    a) Not to label, just like "differently coloured persons" b) Not to segregate, just like "us whites"

    So, we should notice it, but not say or do anything about it. Gotcha, I'll be completely ignoring it from now on.

    If we shouldn't segragate, let's not build any more wheelchair ramps, lets dig up all the ticking traffic lights and build every website solely in .jpg.

    My point is, if you want provisions for whatever is bothering you, there SHOULD be seggregation, it's not always a bad thing. Without it, there would be no schools for the blind, no hearing aids, no glasses.

  • tmountjr (cs) in reply to Kalle

    TRWTF is that this discussion somehow turned from web standards to political correctness.

  • SomeoneElse (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.

    I am a disabled person and I read your site - please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement

    First, No one can keep up with the current PC words/phrases we are supposed to use, so I think you are being a bit thin-skinned about the "differently abled" part. As far as I knew, that was the current popular PC euphemism to use.

    Second, I do believe, after re-reading the article, that Alex was actually criticizing the in-accessibilty of most web sites. In effect, saying that the web dev world should be ashamed at not even making real attempts to make their sites accessible.

    But then again, WTF do I know?

  • Alcari (unregistered) in reply to tmountjr

    Aren't the internets beautifull?

    Captcha: Smile :)

  • keen and able (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    Cheers keen and able!
    • Stumpy.

    I'd say that this is proof that Noah is very much capable of taking a joke. Why are so many people kicking up a stink at Noah kicking up a stink? I've always found that if I offend someone, a polite "sorry I offended you" is enough, not picking holes in everything he says.

    If Noah is offended, then that's well within his rights, in the same way that anyone else can be pi$$ed off and tell people as much.

  • Noah Slater (unregistered) in reply to Alcari

    I have taken back my comments about segregation due to the obvious sarcasm which I missed initially.

    To the commenter who mention hearing aids etc... these are not forms of segregation.

    http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HandicapDefinition.htm

    Anyway... I am going to bow out now as there is nothing left to put.

    Queue the 14 year old d00ds misquoting me and making further issue from this.

  • Freddy Bob (unregistered) in reply to Martijn van Zal
    Martijn van Zal:
    I once saw a site where they did all their hyper links in Bar style :)
    I have seen better than that. I worked on code that had a form entirely made up of hidden elements. The links were
    Whatever
    There could have been a fraction of a point if the form method had been POST. There was no reason at all not to have made the links URLs.
  • PJH (cs) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    The term "differently abled" is offensive to me as a disabled person, as is your assumption that all of your readers are able bodied.
    Turn on your humo(u)r detector.
    I am a disabled person and I read your site -
    Does your disability have any relevance to the code given? Are you partially/fully blind? Quadriplegic? Or are you just in a wheelchair or have learning difficulties?
    please don't refer to me as if:

    a) I am "different" is some way

    Tough. You are. We're all unique, just like everyone else

    b) I should not be reading your site due to my disablement
    Get over yourself and quit it with the self pity.

    Assuming of course you do in fact have a real disability, and are not trolling this forum.

    IMHO IHBT.

  • erKURITA (unregistered)

    I wonder...

    Why does the link to this WTF is called AcceBiBility. Is it a WTF itself?

  • Ted (unregistered) in reply to erKURITA
    erKURITA:
    Why does the link to this WTF is called AcceBiBility. Is it a WTF itself?
    Sounds to me like the programmer of the WTF website is German. Strasse -> Straße
  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to me
    me:
    It's a basic rule of the internet - no matter how obvious you make the sarcasm, someone will take it seriously :D
    This instance looked like pretty clear sarcasm to me and that's how I read it, but I have been guilty of failing to recognize sarcasm in this forum when the particular instance was so lame that it was hard to identify as sarcasm. That is, when it was pointed out to me that the comment was sarcastic, I could only ask "Where's the irony? Where's the wit?"
  • dp.design (cs) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    > You're right, mentioning handicaps in any way, especially for > a story involving accessibility, is totally unacceptable.

    The term "handicaps" is SO offensive I can only assume it was satire.

    You say you're offended at disabilities being ignored

    Can you quote me on that?

    then say you're offended about being called 'different.'

    Yes, and about being mentally segregated from the normal readership of the site.

    Can you imagine if the post read:

    "Anyway, issues with 'differently coloured people' doesn't matter as long as us whites are more dominant."

    Can you imagine reading this as a black man?

    It's just the same...

    It's a bit hard to not assume everyone is able bodied if we aren't allowed to even NOTICE disabilities!!!

    I never asked you not to "notice", instead only:

    a) Not to label, just like "differently coloured persons" b) Not to segregate, just like "us whites"

    It sounds like you are not comfortable with yourself or your disability, whatever that may be.

    A cookie might make you feel better. I've got some hidden on the top shelf of the upstairs closet, the one with the outward-swinging double doors. Help yourself. Just to warn you, though, the red ones taste like crap; go for the green ones instead...just shake the jar, the green ones clank and the red ones clink.

  • Grant Johnson (unregistered)

    I think you missed the point. He was not poking fun at disabled people. He WAS poking at the fact that although we do this ridiculous politically correct language to try not to offend anyone, we do not do anything that will really help, like making websites accessible. That is, at least, until it starts affecting the bottom line.

  • abx (cs)

    Perhaps "the real wtf" is the disability everybody displays when it comes to recognizing a troll? come on, you're supposed to be good at this by now

  • Disgruntled (unregistered)

    Google now requires Javascript to access the alternate services from the page www.google.com.

    In Lynx, for example, the links simply don't appear.

    And as for the "as long as a majority" that's really mocking not those who have problems with "fancy" web sites, but the programmers, designers, and management that think it's ok to get 80% of the audience and blow off the rest.

    My company's meeting room reservation system works only with Internet Explorer, for example. Somebody got cute with the Javascript.

  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to PJH
    PJH:
    Turn on your humo(u)r detector.
    I am totally offended by your patronizing way of accommodating my spelling preference.
  • MeMe (unregistered)

    OK, I will ignore any 'differences' of "differently abled" peoples.

    I MUST now always park in a so-called handicap parking spot, to prove that I do not discriminate.

    Noah, give me your address so you can pay the tickets of those dolts who do not understand non-differences.

  • Capt Obvious (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    "Where's the irony?"

    Under the stairs with the ironing board, where it always is, dear.

  • Offended (unregistered)

    I'm pretty much offended by the way this site mocks "Brillant" people who writes "enterprisey" software! Those people shows creativity in writing extremely complex solutions for the simplest problems and are brave enough to deliver a skeleton object as an industrial strength component! How you dare, you so called "normal"* developers, to discriminate them?

    • of course, as everybody, I belive I'm better than "normal", at least until my code gets submited to the WTF

    NOTE: For those "different able" sarcasm wise, this was an humorous post NOTE2: Yes, not a good one NOTE3: WTF???????

    NOTE4: my captcha is "doom"... it worries me

  • aaaaaaaa (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    > You're right, mentioning handicaps in any way, especially for > a story involving accessibility, is totally unacceptable.

    The term "handicaps" is SO offensive I can only assume it was satire.

    You say you're offended at disabilities being ignored

    Can you quote me on that?

    then say you're offended about being called 'different.'

    Yes, and about being mentally segregated from the normal readership of the site.

    Can you imagine if the post read:

    "Anyway, issues with 'differently coloured people' doesn't matter as long as us whites are more dominant."

    Can you imagine reading this as a black man?

    It's just the same...

    It's a bit hard to not assume everyone is able bodied if we aren't allowed to even NOTICE disabilities!!!

    I never asked you not to "notice", instead only:

    a) Not to label, just like "differently coloured persons" b) Not to segregate, just like "us whites"

    I get it - He's RETARDED!

    OMG - Must Call PC Police

  • Yawwwwn (unregistered) in reply to Noah Slater
    Noah Slater:
    No, you are right - it wasn't his major point, the objectionable language was used seriously.

    I quote:

    "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters."

    How would this make you feel as a disabled reader? Alienated? Maybe you will reply "no" but the fact of the matter is that this language distances this site from disabled readers.

    It's subtle, but it's important.

    Your sarcasm meter is...

    wait for it...

    ... disabled.

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to cyclops
    cyclops:
    Am I the only one who thought the phrase "As long as we, the majority, can access content, that’s all that really matters." was sarcasm in the context it was used?

    You're not alone - I'm not really sure why you'd read this as anything but sarcasm.

Leave a comment on “Accessibility”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article