Re: W3C Validator as test for WCAG?

Actually the Content Guidelines go further than that, and actually encourage
the use of accessible multimedia (including images). These things can enhance
useability and accessibility. They should not be banished into the
never-never. They just need to be used with a bit of care, because they are
not automatically accessible. (Nor is text, although it starts out so far
ahead of the rest that it is easy to forget that.)

The reason is that accessibility for people with disabilities means a lot
more than accessibility for people who are blind.

All that being said, the problem with the validator as a test is that it
doesn't recognise the difference between a 10000 word document made up of
paragraphs, some of which use valid CSS to make the font larger, and a 10000
word document which is structured with appropriate levels of heading,
abbreviations and code marked propoerly, etc.

As William said, validation is "necessary but not sufficient". The quicktips
provide 10 things to do on a business card, which make a pretty good fast
guide. I would encourage you to use them as a resource (and to give
feedback to w3c-wai-eo@w3.org on your experience).
http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips

cheers

Charles McCathieNevile

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  Also, I get really worried whenever someone lists accessibility
  criteria that include NOT using applets, scripts, video, and
  sound.  That sends the WRONG message, said message being "applets
  etc are NOT accessible, don't use them!" which translates into
  "don't even bother trying to make an accessible page if you want
  to use applets etc" which translates into "if you want a cool
  page, it can't possibly be accessible!"

Received on Thursday, 3 June 1999 12:59:36 UTC