> Now, our USGenWeb sites don't fall under Section 508 > restrictions as > such. The interesting language in this bill is that > the standards apply > when Federal agencies (and one presumes the other > governmental agencies) > *USE* technology. So, our failure to adhere to > accessibility standards > might mean that our site would not be LINKed from > the county government or > local library web site -- thus making it more > difficult for our information > to be accessed. Perhaps rather than discussing this in terms of government regulation, which would just push some people's buttons and doesn't apply to most USGenWeb sites, we could approach it in terms of a greater social attitude change. As those who are required to and those who want to do the right thing comply with the guidelines, more and more people will come to expect accessible design as the natural order of things. Just as curb cuts help mothers with strollers and automatic doors help people with an armload, Internet users will find this helpful. Those who don't have to change and choose not to won't be regulated or sued, but they won't get as many visits as they might otherwise, which seems a shame after all the work we put into our sites. Bob Sullivan NY SC / Schenectady County CC Schenectady County Public Library <http://www.scpl.org/> Schenectady Digital History Archive <http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

Before everyone gets their nose out of joint and allows the sky to fall on them, the amendment process is simple. Approval by the Bylaws Revision Committee is only the first step. As the name says, we are only a Committee. We will hand off our completed work to the AB, which in turn, will open the floor for discussion. Only after discussion is complete, will the AB vote. Please correct me if I have misspoken, Mr. Parliamentarian. The current discussion is not so much about the size or dimension of our logo as it is in pride and affiliation. If any Project member came aboard for any reason other than to serve others, they are here for the wrong motivation. If we are more concerned in making a name than in making a contribution, we need to re-focus our energy. Membership in the USGenWeb Project is a source of pride to me. I hope it is to you as well. Derick S. Hartshorn State Coordinator, NCGenWeb Project PS: Rather than appear a hypocrite, I have changed my pages to comply. http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccconov/ At 07:06 PM 5/4/03, Rob wrote: >Not wanting to get behind, and having the dictators 'fire' (or worse) >me, I decided to "comply" with the logo dictation in advance. > >I was not 100% positive exactly which logo to prominently display at >the top of the page, so I placed both there. > >Hopefully, this will satisfy all requirements.. I surely do not wish >to cross anyone! >http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nc/county/pasquotank/ > >Robert > > > > We have seen the rapidly eroding intellectual rights of the title > > "GenWeb." There are now several entities that use the NCGenWeb, >USGenWeb > > and other variations in their logo. In order to make a >differentiation > > between our organization and the pretenders, the committee discussed >this > > issue at length. > >It doesn't matter how many county pages have USGW logos or where they >place >them -- if another organization is using "USGenWeb Project," "XXGenWeb >Project," or closely similar variations, they may be guilty of >trademark/service mark infringement. You could replace the index page >of >every USGW county with a giant logo, and it will have no effect on >what >another organization is doing. By the way, do you have any examples >of >projects and/or pages with this sort of violation? I'd like to take a >look >-- if they're county pages, it's possible that they're in violation of >their own project's guidelines if they're copying USGW logos. > > >There was one particular NCGenWeb page that was used as an example of >how > >only grudging support is being given to the Project. > >And in my opinion, that page is already in violation of the by-law as >currently written. There's no need to re-write the by-laws, only the >necessity of a way to enforce what we already have. > > >The intent is for the page to be recognizable as a member project of >the > >USGWP. This can only be effectively achieved by making the logo >visable > >without scrolling. The specified minimum size (100 X 100) should not >be > >interpreted as the determining factor for page compliance. Some pages > >currently make it difficult to determine who the sponsoring >organization > >is and further confuse the issue by using a hodge-podge of logos. > > >Sponsoring organization? My page doesn't exist thanks to the USGWP, >the >USGWP exists thanks to my page and hundreds of others like it. Maybe >I'm >being overly picky about the semantics, but the USGWP doesn't sponsor >me. If anyone sponsors me, I suppose you could say that Rootsweb >does, >since they provide my webspace. I'm a volunteer and a member of the >USGWP. > >I think it's just silly to say that a page can't be recognizable as a >USGWP >member unless the logo slaps you in the face. Again, we have dozens >of >pages withing NCGW that have the logo further down the page, but >there's no >doubt about their membership. Again, if you can't tell that a page >belongs >to the USGWP, then it's already in violation of the by-law as is >currently >written. Take it up with that particular webmaster. > > >Without entering a discussion regarding the future of the >organization, I > >can only say that without immediate recognition of who we are, we >could > >become another genealogical entity suffering from lack of >sponsorship. > >Apples and oranges. If the USGWP is so pitiful and on such a shaky >foundation that my putting a logo "below the fold," so to speak, is >going >to be catastrophic, then maybe we're all wasting our time trying to >prop it >up. > > >There was no suggestion that page hosts abandon their current >affiliations > >with other entities, only that the USGWP page be given its due and >appear > >preeminent. Further discussion (Section 2) will be devoted to other >issues. > >Ahhh, but call me suspicious. I tend to think that this "us first! >us >first!" hue and cry is just the first step towards demanding an all or >nothing allegiance to the USGWP. And I don't like that, not one bit. >I >don't think that's how you attract and keep hard-working volunteers. >I >think it's far better to set the minimal requirements and then let >your >volunteers run with it. Any organization that can't function unless >the >members are basically caged is in deep trouble. > >Angie > >--Boundary_(ID_3uXBMEoDgXk67O4cC9PFPQ) >Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; > x-avg-checked=avg-ok-222E6FF7 >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Content-disposition: inline > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 > >--Boundary_(ID_3uXBMEoDgXk67O4cC9PFPQ)--

--Boundary_(ID_bY/mahmAgrWU7txGeR8Pdw) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-222E6FF7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >If I may make a private interpretation of "standard browser screen," I >take it to mean the screen that is viewed by invoking the index or default >URL. So, in other words, the group of people that authored this proposed change don't know what they mean. There *is* no such thing as a standard browser screen in the "real world" on the internet. There is no such thing as a standard resolution. So the wording of this new by-law is impossibly flawed from the start. By the way, you're mixing apples and oranges. A browser is something you use, a tool, nothing more or less. The default URL would be what you would see when you use a browser, assuming that you use only the base URL & don't add a specific page designation; for most sites, the "index.htm" or "index.html" page would be what you get. Are you also suggesting that USGW pages would be required to use the "index.htm" as their front page? A lot of people don't. Especially people who may have more than one county on the same account (pretty common among people providing their own webspace outside of the largesse of Rootsweb). Personally, I don't think the current by-law *needs* revising. But substituting one set of vague instructions with a second set of vague instructions certainly is not an improvement. If it's subject to someone's personal interpretation, then what's the purpose? >The intent is to immediately identify our Project to the page viewer, >distinguishing it from those who have adopted some form of "GenWeb" >alternative. It also proclaims that the page is affiliated with the >national USGenWeb Project. Well, now, let's keep the terminology correct <g>. GenWeb is the trademark of a biotech firm. Pardon me for being suspicious, but I tend to think that this whole discussion has less to do identifying our project to the page viewer than it does with those alternative projects. Instead of trying to find roundabout ways to try to somehow diminish or lessen other projects -- and the participation of USGWP volunteers in them -- why not focus on ways to improve the USGWP? >As for the usage of graphical browsers, the use thereof is low enough to >make "standard browser screen" a moot point. But the way the new proposal is worded, "standard browser screen" is hardly moot. In fact, the definition of a standard browser screen is almost the whole point. >The attempt was made to identify Project pages, not to empower "page police." Then identify specific pages with issues and makes suggestions to the webmaster. This new by-law suggestion would do little more than *create* a page police, as some people would begin to run amuck among USGWP pages looking for violations to whine about. >The home or index page is the front door of our Project pages. Like the >realty agencies who place a "for sale" sign in the front yard of a home >being sold, Century 21 signs won't be found in the bathroom, bedroom, etc. >'Nuff said. I don't follow the relevance of this one at all, but whatever. Although perhaps it's worth pointing out that the last time I put a house up for sale, the realtor was providing me with a service for which she was rather handsomely paid. And she put her sign in my yard with my permission, because it was my yard, not hers. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb Project --Boundary_(ID_bY/mahmAgrWU7txGeR8Pdw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-222E6FF7 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 --Boundary_(ID_bY/mahmAgrWU7txGeR8Pdw)--

At 07:39 PM 5/3/2003 -0600, Suzanne Leonard wrote: >I am a web designer by trade, and things are in an uproar in our business, >because of the new web design standards proposed by the world wide web >consortium, W3C. All of our web pages will have to be redesigned within >the next couple of years. Some of the highlights of the proposed rules: It's not just the "standards proposed" by W3C that's got us web designers busy. There are governmental standards. For example, the US Government has published Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which defines criteria that spell out what makes products accessible to people with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use such technology. Many states and municipalities, universities and libraries, also adhere to the Section 508 regulations. Now, our USGenWeb sites don't fall under Section 508 restrictions as such. The interesting language in this bill is that the standards apply when Federal agencies (and one presumes the other governmental agencies) *USE* technology. So, our failure to adhere to accessibility standards might mean that our site would not be LINKed from the county government or local library web site -- thus making it more difficult for our information to be accessed. Now, my sites are no better or worse than anyone else. I have *not* gone back through them to fix the accessibility problems. I need to do so -- and will over the next few months. If I create something that I'm particularly proud of, I'll invite everyone over to see the results. Regards, Elsi

I neglected to state the usual permission to forward to your state lists, or any appropriate list. Sorry! Would really appreciate it if NENC states did forward to their CCs. Nationals are just around the corner. :-) Thanks! Ellen At 12:26 PM 5/4/2003 -0500, you wrote: >To All NorthEast North Central Project members: > >The USGenWeb Election Committee is searching for a volunteer who would >like to serve on the Election Committee, from the NorthEast/North Central >Region. > >The following replacement position is open: > >NorthEast/North Central Region - Term ending December 31, 2003 > >States in the region include: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, >Massachusettes, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, >Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont. > >Responsibilities include developing a working relationship with State and >Assistant Coordinators from the region to maintain a current membership >voter list, and assisting in polls and elections, especially during the >months of June and part of July to host the USGenWeb project's Annual >National Election. > >Volunteers will have the satisfaction of working with an excellent group >of people to handle a difficult but important responsibility. > >Per Election Committee Procedures, volunteers are subject to confirmation >by the USGenWeb Advisory Board. > >If you are interested in volunteering, please send a note to Ellen Pack ><e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> with the subject line "Volunteer EC NENC." > >Please include a list of your USGenWeb positions within the NENC Region. > >Thank you for you time, and please consider volunteering. > >Ellen Pack >Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee >

To All NorthEast North Central Project members: The USGenWeb Election Committee is searching for a volunteer who would like to serve on the Election Committee, from the NorthEast/North Central Region. The following replacement position is open: NorthEast/North Central Region - Term ending December 31, 2003 States in the region include: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusettes, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Responsibilities include developing a working relationship with State and Assistant Coordinators from the region to maintain a current membership voter list, and assisting in polls and elections, especially during the months of June and part of July to host the USGenWeb project's Annual National Election. Volunteers will have the satisfaction of working with an excellent group of people to handle a difficult but important responsibility. Per Election Committee Procedures, volunteers are subject to confirmation by the USGenWeb Advisory Board. If you are interested in volunteering, please send a note to Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> with the subject line "Volunteer EC NENC." Please include a list of your USGenWeb positions within the NENC Region. Thank you for you time, and please consider volunteering. Ellen Pack Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee

At 01:56 PM 5/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Leigh, may we forward your message on to our state lists? I try to promote >making our pages accessible to all visitors and not just those that have the >latest and greatest browsers and computers. We still have at least one person >who accesses our pages by way of email. (yes, it's still possible) Yes - I give my permission for my mail to be forwarded to any and all lists. Regards, Elsi >Connie > >Elsi wrote: > > > At 09:52 AM 5/3/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > > >At 02:31 PM 5/3/03 +0100, Elsi wrote: > > > > > > > >A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing > > > >accessibility standards. > > > > > >Elsi, > > > > > >Do you mean things like ALT tags and other such HTML / XML items that > > >assist the blind and/or otherwise handicapped? > > > > Definitely the ALT tags. And meaningful ALT tags. For example if there is > > a scanned image of a will, one should use the LONGDESC with a full > > transcript of the contents, not just an ALT label saying "Will of George > > Peters" -- or link to the transcript. In other words, don't restrict > > content because of a handicap. > > > > But there are a ton of other things that need to be done to enable our > > pages to be used by ALL, whether able-bodied or not: > > * Only using tables for tabular data and not for layout/appearance. Screen > > readers have a very hard time dealing with table-based layouts. > > * Making sure that font choices can be overridden by the user as > > desired/necessary. Those with limited vision (maybe even just an elderly > > person) may need to enlarge fonts in order to read the text. > > * Making sure that our pages can be navigated entirely by keyboard and not > > require a mouse. (And removing the mousey language such as "click here".) > > * Making sure that pages will print properly. Some accessibility tools use > > a 'printed' view of the page. > > * Ensuring that music doesn't automatically play. A deaf person might not > > know that the speakers are turned up to full volume & thus disturb someone > > nearby. > > * Ensuring that pages display legibly (if not as attractively) on WebTV and > > small monitors (800x600 for example). > > > > The W3C has guidelines posted at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ > > > > You can validate your pages using Bobby at > > http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp > > > > Elsi

> I am a web designer by trade, and things are in an > uproar in our business, > because of the new web design standards proposed by > the world wide web > consortium, W3C. All of our web pages will have to > be redesigned within the > next couple of years. Some of the highlights of the > proposed rules: Technically, we can expect that browsers will support the old way of doing things for many years to come, and for many designers a strict adherence to the "old" HTML 4.01 standard will give much of the same benefit as a conversion to the newer XHTML way (all tags being closed, etc.). Of course, if you're already playing by the rules then a conversion to XHTML 1.0 and cascading style sheets is not really that much of a leap. The important thing is avoiding browser-specific and sloppy coding practices which will come back to bite you as the major browsers move toward greater compliance with current Web standards. If you had problems with your pages when IE6 came out and wondered what "standards" and "quirks" modes are, it's related to how the browser interprets your compliance with the standards. > A good resource for optimal page size is: > http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm#res > It also has stats on how many colors, which > browsers, etc. Excellent resource! Not only do they discuss the nonstandard screen size of WebTV/MSN TV, but the additional twist given it by the squashing of a page to fit on the screen and the resolution problems inherent in using a television to read text. One thing they don't mention is the emulator available at <http://developer.msntv.com/>; between the screen size and the quirky CSS support, you never know quite what your pages will look like without trying them out. Regarding the disability issues raised by Elsi and others: anyone interested in a more in depth discussion should check out _Building Accessible Websites_ by Joe Clark. Opinionated, no-nonsense and full of real-world examples, it is widely considered to be the best book out there on the subject. You may not be quite able to comprehend how someone would use a Braille display to read your page, but you will be motivated to try to make it as easy as possible for them. Bob Sullivan NY SC / Schenectady County CC Schenectady County Public Library (NY) <http://www.scpl.org/> Schenectady Digital History Archive <http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

At 12:35 PM 5/3/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Elsi, all > >While we may have discussed more volatile issues in the BRC, I have never >seen one that elicited as much interest. >If I may make a private interpretation of "standard browser screen," I >take it to mean the screen that is viewed by invoking the index or default >URL. Without touching a mouse, page-down or scroll control, the USGWP logo >shall be immediately visible. This definition may preclude the placement >of the logo on the right side of the screen (depending on resolution) or >at the bottom of the page. > >The intent is to immediately identify our Project to the page viewer, >distinguishing it from those who have adopted some form of "GenWeb" >alternative. It also proclaims that the page is affiliated with the >national USGenWeb Project. > >As for the usage of graphical browsers, the use thereof is low enough to >make "standard browser screen" a moot point. The attempt was made to >identify Project pages, not to empower "page police." > >The home or index page is the front door of our Project pages. Like the >realty agencies who place a "for sale" sign in the front yard of a home >being sold, Century 21 signs won't be found in the bathroom, bedroom, etc. >'Nuff said. > >BTW, the Bylaws Revision Committee has two vacancies. Anyone feeling >strongly about the future of the USGWP is invited to volunteer. Please >contact Roger Swafford, Committee Chair <sagitta56@mchsi.com> Derrick: I'm not opposed to the objective. I just think that the wording in this proposal is fatally flawed. If you want to make sure that the USGenWeb Logo can be seen on any page load without scrolling, then be specific: "All USGenWeb web sites shall display an official USGenWeb logo on the home or index page as the first element in the upper left corner of the page. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 pixels by 100 pixels in size." And, I'd probably be even more specific as to which logos -- "Logos used must be one of those found at from http://www.usgenweb.com/official-logo.html and may not be altered in any way." Now you take away all the possibilities of squabbling -- "well, *I* don't have to scroll to see it!" "If you'd run your PC with the 'standard' resolution of 1024x768, you'd see it there." Regards, Elsi

At 09:52 AM 5/3/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >At 02:31 PM 5/3/03 +0100, Elsi wrote: > > > >A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing > >accessibility standards. > >Elsi, > >Do you mean things like ALT tags and other such HTML / XML items that >assist the blind and/or otherwise handicapped? Definitely the ALT tags. And meaningful ALT tags. For example if there is a scanned image of a will, one should use the LONGDESC with a full transcript of the contents, not just an ALT label saying "Will of George Peters" -- or link to the transcript. In other words, don't restrict content because of a handicap. But there are a ton of other things that need to be done to enable our pages to be used by ALL, whether able-bodied or not: * Only using tables for tabular data and not for layout/appearance. Screen readers have a very hard time dealing with table-based layouts. * Making sure that font choices can be overridden by the user as desired/necessary. Those with limited vision (maybe even just an elderly person) may need to enlarge fonts in order to read the text. * Making sure that our pages can be navigated entirely by keyboard and not require a mouse. (And removing the mousey language such as "click here".) * Making sure that pages will print properly. Some accessibility tools use a 'printed' view of the page. * Ensuring that music doesn't automatically play. A deaf person might not know that the speakers are turned up to full volume & thus disturb someone nearby. * Ensuring that pages display legibly (if not as attractively) on WebTV and small monitors (800x600 for example). The W3C has guidelines posted at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ You can validate your pages using Bobby at http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp Elsi

I am a web designer by trade, and things are in an uproar in our business, because of the new web design standards proposed by the world wide web consortium, W3C. All of our web pages will have to be redesigned within the next couple of years. Some of the highlights of the proposed rules: - <Alt> tags will be required on all images - They are getting rid of many of those old familiar <tags> like <font>, to be replaced by cascading style sheets, CSS - All pages must be accessible by all browsers - All paired codes must be closed<open>blah blah</close> - No improper nesting of codes<code1><code2> blah blah</code1></code2> You can check your HTML code at: http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/ and you can check your CSS code at: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ A good resource for optimal page size is: http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm#res It also has stats on how many colors, which browsers, etc. As for pet peeves, see: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ Job security, huh? Suzanne

I feel like we should be picky about our counties, cities and towns, AND we should be picky about how we present ourselves. It matters. Shari [-----Original Message----- [From: Jan Bony [mailto:jbony@ochoco.com] [Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:00 PM [To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com [Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: [TXGEN] Bylaws Revision - News [ [ [Accessability of the web pagess is much more important than [whether or not [a logo is in the correct space. Providing our "customers" with simple [easy to use web pages with data about specific information to [the state [or county is what we need to focus on. I think we need to [remember why we [are here: From the About the Project at www.usgenweb.com [ ["The USGenWeb Project consists of a group of volunteers [working together [to provide Internet websites for genealogical research in [every county and [every state of the United States. The Project is [non-commercial and fully [committed to free access for everyone." [ [I think we need to remember that free access for everyone [means that we [should not be picky about a logo, and should be picky about providing [information about our counties, states, cities and towns. [ [ [On Sat, 3 May 2003, Elsi wrote: [ [> At 04:31 PM 5/2/2003 -0500, Roger Swafford wrote: [> >Section 1. All USGenWeb web sites shall display an [official USGenWeb [> >logo prominently, on the home or index page, in such away that [> >the entire image is visible without scrolling down on a [standard browser [> >screen. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 pixels by 100 [> >pixels in size. [> [> [> Please define "standard browser screen". Within how many [pixels of the top [> of the "screen" does this image have to appear in order to [avoid scrolling? [> [> What about horizontal scrolling? You don't want to restrict that? [> [> Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't [> necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this [particular [> requirement difficult to properly define and police. [> [> And, this proposal pre-supposes a graphical browser. There [are users who [> browse with text browsers and will never see a logo, no [matter how much [> they scroll. [> [> Why does the logo have to appear on only the [first/home/index page of the [> site? Why not require it on each and every page? [> [> A much better effort for our organization would be to start [proposing [> accessibility standards. [> [> Regards, [> Elsi (aka Leigh Compton) [> [> [ [Jan Bony [jbony@ochoco.com [Crook Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orcrook [Deschutes Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ordeschu [Harney Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orharney [Wheeler Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orwheele [Personal Genealogy Pages: http://www.ochoco.com/jbony/genealogy/index.html Ochoco Computer Services: http://www.ochoco.com

[I think "police" is the operative word here. Who will be the ["page police" who [go out and measure each and every logo on every project site? [I guess that will [fall to the SC's, won't it? Unless national is going to [establish their own [police force. I don't anticipate that there would be national "Page Police". The situation of ensuring compliance with requirements would be the same as it is now, with the current page requirements. Shari [-----Original Message----- [From: Connie Snyder [mailto:cjsnyder@alltel.net] [Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 12:30 PM [To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com [Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: [TXGEN] Bylaws Revision - News [ [ [Elsi wrote: [ [> Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't [> necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this [particular [> requirement difficult to properly define and police. [ [I think "police" is the operative word here. Who will be the ["page police" who [go out and measure each and every logo on every project site? [I guess that will [fall to the SC's, won't it? Unless national is going to [establish their own [police force. [ [I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring every project site to use a [particular design template. It would soon become very boring [going from county [to county and state to state. I do like the idea of some ["guidelines" (not [bylaw) on what _not_ to use on county sites, if only to point [out how many [people do not like music that automatically plays, frames, [code that calls for [small sized fonts, and those animations that follow the [cursor around. It's [cute for about two seconds, but then just becomes irritating [when you try to [concentrate on the information on the page. Any one else have [a 'pet peeve' [list?? <gr-r-r-r> [ [Connie [

The BRC felt that it was important to promote and preserve a distinct identity for our project and to avoid confusion with the myriad other projects and independent sites. One way to do this is to be sure that, as our Bylaws currently specify, our logo is *prominantly* displayed. Over the years our Bylaws have been in place, the question of what exactly constitutes "prominent" display has come up a number of times. This newly-worded section spells it out. Shari Handley [-----Original Message----- [From: Angie Rayfield [mailto:angie@inmyattic.com] [Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 8:44 PM [To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com [Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News [ [ [ [--Boundary_(ID_142FyXCx3F1qEsNseUCFyw) [Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-8625828; [charset=us-ascii; [ format=flowed [Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT [ [ [> > > Section 1. All USGenWeb web sites shall display an [official USGenWeb [> > > logo prominently, on the home or index page, in such away that [> > > the entire image is visible without scrolling down on a [standard browser [> > > screen. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 [pixels by 100 [> > > pixels in size. [ [Well, I'm not on the By-laws list, but I'm guessing that [probably at least [one of the BRC is on this list <g>. This is something I have [an opinion on.... [ [I have a problem with specifying that logos must be visible without [scrolling. I think that you can display logos appropriately [without making [them the first thing you see when you go to a page -- it [depends on the [layout and design of the page. If you have to go searching [for the logo, [then there's a problem. If it's easily spotted, then what's the [problem? My page does not display the logos in the top half [-- the first [thing you see when you come to the page is the navigation and [information [about the county -- but the logos and links back are [certainly easy to find. [ [People don't want to have to go looking for information, they [want it right [in front of their faces. Everything I've read on web design [says make the [pages short, make them simple. Don't bury the important [stuff a half dozen [clicks into the site, get it right up front. Why should a [researcher have [to scroll past a bunch of logos to get to the meat of the [page? Are we [saying that the logos are more important than anything else? [Personally, I [don't think so, and I have a funny feeling that our page [visitors won't [think so, either. This kind of requirement feels [uncomfortably to me like [a USGW ego trip rather than anything that will actually be of [benefit to [researchers. [ [Angie Rayfield [NCGenWeb Project [ [--Boundary_(ID_142FyXCx3F1qEsNseUCFyw) [Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; [ x-avg-checked=avg-ok-8625828 [Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT [Content-disposition: inline [ [ [--- [Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. [Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). [Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 [ [--Boundary_(ID_142FyXCx3F1qEsNseUCFyw)--

At 04:31 PM 5/2/2003 -0500, Roger Swafford wrote: >Section 1. All USGenWeb web sites shall display an official USGenWeb >logo prominently, on the home or index page, in such away that >the entire image is visible without scrolling down on a standard browser >screen. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 pixels by 100 >pixels in size. Please define "standard browser screen". Within how many pixels of the top of the "screen" does this image have to appear in order to avoid scrolling? What about horizontal scrolling? You don't want to restrict that? Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this particular requirement difficult to properly define and police. And, this proposal pre-supposes a graphical browser. There are users who browse with text browsers and will never see a logo, no matter how much they scroll. Why does the logo have to appear on only the first/home/index page of the site? Why not require it on each and every page? A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing accessibility standards. Regards, Elsi (aka Leigh Compton)

Leigh, may we forward your message on to our state lists? I try to promote making our pages accessible to all visitors and not just those that have the latest and greatest browsers and computers. We still have at least one person who accesses our pages by way of email. (yes, it's still possible) Connie Elsi wrote: > At 09:52 AM 5/3/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > >At 02:31 PM 5/3/03 +0100, Elsi wrote: > > > > > >A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing > > >accessibility standards. > > > >Elsi, > > > >Do you mean things like ALT tags and other such HTML / XML items that > >assist the blind and/or otherwise handicapped? > > Definitely the ALT tags. And meaningful ALT tags. For example if there is > a scanned image of a will, one should use the LONGDESC with a full > transcript of the contents, not just an ALT label saying "Will of George > Peters" -- or link to the transcript. In other words, don't restrict > content because of a handicap. > > But there are a ton of other things that need to be done to enable our > pages to be used by ALL, whether able-bodied or not: > * Only using tables for tabular data and not for layout/appearance. Screen > readers have a very hard time dealing with table-based layouts. > * Making sure that font choices can be overridden by the user as > desired/necessary. Those with limited vision (maybe even just an elderly > person) may need to enlarge fonts in order to read the text. > * Making sure that our pages can be navigated entirely by keyboard and not > require a mouse. (And removing the mousey language such as "click here".) > * Making sure that pages will print properly. Some accessibility tools use > a 'printed' view of the page. > * Ensuring that music doesn't automatically play. A deaf person might not > know that the speakers are turned up to full volume & thus disturb someone > nearby. > * Ensuring that pages display legibly (if not as attractively) on WebTV and > small monitors (800x600 for example). > > The W3C has guidelines posted at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ > > You can validate your pages using Bobby at > http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp > > Elsi

I like the idea of uniform logos for The USGenWeb Project, even if it's a small logo in the top corner of the front page of XXGenWeb's and county sites. It identifies the page as part of a recognized and respected volunteer project. Linda

Hi Elsi, all While we may have discussed more volatile issues in the BRC, I have never seen one that elicited as much interest. If I may make a private interpretation of "standard browser screen," I take it to mean the screen that is viewed by invoking the index or default URL. Without touching a mouse, page-down or scroll control, the USGWP logo shall be immediately visible. This definition may preclude the placement of the logo on the right side of the screen (depending on resolution) or at the bottom of the page. The intent is to immediately identify our Project to the page viewer, distinguishing it from those who have adopted some form of "GenWeb" alternative. It also proclaims that the page is affiliated with the national USGenWeb Project. As for the usage of graphical browsers, the use thereof is low enough to make "standard browser screen" a moot point. The attempt was made to identify Project pages, not to empower "page police." The home or index page is the front door of our Project pages. Like the realty agencies who place a "for sale" sign in the front yard of a home being sold, Century 21 signs won't be found in the bathroom, bedroom, etc. 'Nuff said. BTW, the Bylaws Revision Committee has two vacancies. Anyone feeling strongly about the future of the USGWP is invited to volunteer. Please contact Roger Swafford, Committee Chair <sagitta56@mchsi.com> Derick S. Hartshorn State Coordinator, NCGenWeb Project Member-USGWP ERC At 09:31 AM 5/3/03, you wrote: >At 04:31 PM 5/2/2003 -0500, Roger Swafford wrote: >>Section 1. All USGenWeb web sites shall display an official USGenWeb >>logo prominently, on the home or index page, in such away that >>the entire image is visible without scrolling down on a standard browser >>screen. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 pixels by 100 >>pixels in size. > > >Please define "standard browser screen". Within how many pixels of the >top of the "screen" does this image have to appear in order to avoid scrolling? > >What about horizontal scrolling? You don't want to restrict that? > >Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't >necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this particular >requirement difficult to properly define and police. > >And, this proposal pre-supposes a graphical browser. There are users who >browse with text browsers and will never see a logo, no matter how much >they scroll. > >Why does the logo have to appear on only the first/home/index page of the >site? Why not require it on each and every page? > >A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing >accessibility standards. > >Regards, >Elsi (aka Leigh Compton)

Accessability of the web pagess is much more important than whether or not a logo is in the correct space. Providing our "customers" with simple easy to use web pages with data about specific information to the state or county is what we need to focus on. I think we need to remember why we are here: From the About the Project at www.usgenweb.com "The USGenWeb Project consists of a group of volunteers working together to provide Internet websites for genealogical research in every county and every state of the United States. The Project is non-commercial and fully committed to free access for everyone." I think we need to remember that free access for everyone means that we should not be picky about a logo, and should be picky about providing information about our counties, states, cities and towns. On Sat, 3 May 2003, Elsi wrote: > At 04:31 PM 5/2/2003 -0500, Roger Swafford wrote: > >Section 1. All USGenWeb web sites shall display an official USGenWeb > >logo prominently, on the home or index page, in such away that > >the entire image is visible without scrolling down on a standard browser > >screen. The USGenWeb logo used shall be at least 100 pixels by 100 > >pixels in size. > > > Please define "standard browser screen". Within how many pixels of the top > of the "screen" does this image have to appear in order to avoid scrolling? > > What about horizontal scrolling? You don't want to restrict that? > > Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't > necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this particular > requirement difficult to properly define and police. > > And, this proposal pre-supposes a graphical browser. There are users who > browse with text browsers and will never see a logo, no matter how much > they scroll. > > Why does the logo have to appear on only the first/home/index page of the > site? Why not require it on each and every page? > > A much better effort for our organization would be to start proposing > accessibility standards. > > Regards, > Elsi (aka Leigh Compton) > > Jan Bony jbony@ochoco.com Crook Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orcrook Deschutes Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ordeschu Harney Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orharney Wheeler Co. OR, USA Coordinator: http://www.rootsweb.com/~orwheele Personal Genealogy Pages: http://www.ochoco.com/jbony/genealogy/index.html Ochoco Computer Services: http://www.ochoco.com

Elsi wrote: > Unless the USGenWeb wants to dictate design templates (which I don't > necessarily think is a bad idea), you're going to find this particular > requirement difficult to properly define and police. I think "police" is the operative word here. Who will be the "page police" who go out and measure each and every logo on every project site? I guess that will fall to the SC's, won't it? Unless national is going to establish their own police force. I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring every project site to use a particular design template. It would soon become very boring going from county to county and state to state. I do like the idea of some "guidelines" (not bylaw) on what _not_ to use on county sites, if only to point out how many people do not like music that automatically plays, frames, code that calls for small sized fonts, and those animations that follow the cursor around. It's cute for about two seconds, but then just becomes irritating when you try to concentrate on the information on the page. Any one else have a 'pet peeve' list?? <gr-r-r-r> Connie