W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Fwd: NetMechanic Results on www.hwg.org

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:29:00 -0400
Message-Id: <199909031223.IAA01699@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: Kasday@acm.org
The note should come from Len, and it should be an invitation to join in
the ER IG where knotty issues such as what to do in a checker with
un-implemented markup are being thrashed out as we speak.

Al

At 09:03 PM 9/2/99 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I ran a test on http://www.hwg.org/ at http://www.netmechanic.com/
>today.
>
>They told me that I'd "misspelled" a lot of words, like XML and
>XHTML, plus they kindly informed me that <!DOCTYPE> is not a valid
>HTML tag.
>
>The thing that scares the heck out of the accessibility instructor
>within me is rating of our "browser compatability".  The things it
>identifies as "incompatible" all fall into one of the two 
>categories:
>
>(a) Style sheet support, such as SPAN elements or CLASS/ID
>     attributes, which specifically degrade gracefully when CSS
>     is not present, and
>(b) Attributes/elements added for accessibility's sake, such
>     as IMG LONGDESC, HTML LANG, ABBR, or LABEL.
>
>Now, I don't mind being identified as "incompatible" with old
>versions of browsers, but the PROBLEM here is their "advice" to
>web designers:
>
>"Try to avoid using a tag or attribute if it is incompatible with
>more than 10% of your audience."
>
>THIS IS SO UTTERLY WRONG.
>
>Here's what they say for LONGDESC:
>
>Tag:                IMG
>Attribute:          LONGDESC
>Lines:              78
>Visitors Affected:  99.00%
>Microsoft:
>   3:                N
>   4:                N
>   5:                N
>Netscape:
>   2:                N
>   3:                N
>   4:                N
>
>In other words, since 99% of browsers out there don't use the
>information, you shouldn't include LONGDESC.
>
>In short:
>
>      Their advice is actively ANTI-ACCESSIBLE.
>
>Would someone care to join me in writing to these people about the
>inherent problems in advising against the use of proper HTML code
>as they are doing here?  It might mean more if we all got together.
>
>This could also be an issue for the evaluation/repairs tools to
>look at, but I don't know what exactly you'd want to do.
>
>PS:  The url below expires in 2 days.
>
>--Kynn
>
>>Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:59:18 -0400
>>To: kynn@kynn.com
>>Subject: NetMechanic Results
>>From: webmaster@netmechanic.com
>>
>>[ad snipped]
>>
>>NetMechanic has completed the tests you requested for:
>>
>>http://www.hwg.org/
>>Job Configuration: One Page, Local Links, Remote Links, Images, HTML
Standard: HTML Version 4.0 Standard
>>
>>You can find your results at:
>>
>>http://beta.netmechanic2.com/summary.cgi?f=244225225-06389s=NetMechanic&fv=2
>>
>>Reports will be stored at this URL for the next 2 days.
>>
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   http://www.kynn.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>Catch the Web Accessibility Meme!                   http://aware.hwg.org/
> 
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 08:21:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:34 UTC