- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:48:58 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Good idea Al, to use this as an opportunity to ask them to join us. I'll write a note after mellowing out a bit this weekend. Len At 08:29 AM 9/3/99 -0400, Al Gilman wrote: >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&f v=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/ >> > > ------- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering Temple University Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122 kasday@acm.org (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 10:46:07 UTC