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

Re: Web Magazine featuring Accessibility issues

From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:29:39 +0100
Message-ID: <007801bf1ad5$4013d120$3c92268a@bath.ac.uk>
To: webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net, "'Brian Kelly'" <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Bruce

> Not to sound like a jerk, but the problems you are having relate to
writing
> *valid* html and have precious little to do with accessibility!

    Thanks for your comments - but the HTML and CSS are now valid, and
the display bug in Netscape remains.  As others have pointed out
Netscape has problems with valid documents.

> Add the doctype statement.
> Replace the & in your URL encodings (inside of HREF's) with &amp; and
your
> links will still work AND be valid html.
>
> I learned this trick from trying to create a link to Bobby that would
test
> my page live.  See http://www.dors.state.md.us/test.html for an
example.
>  (I have since stopped linking to Bobby on every page.  I don't expect
to
> do this again unless CAST brings back an option for an easy-to-read
and
> simple "Bobby Approved" message.  (BTW, Bobby STILL does not test for
links
> which are hidden by ALT="" -- which is why I posted that page in the
first
> place!)
>
> Once you take care of both of the above, the W3C validator should
start to
> report on the "real" errors on your page...  I'll bet Net.Fame that
once
> you have a validated page the display inconsistencies with Navigator
will
> disappear!

I think you owe me a Net.Fame (?)

Brian

> Yes, it would be nice if the W3C validator did not get hung up on
"trivial"
> html errors (especially ones that are repeated several times on a
page).
>  But the tool works, and it's free and very fast.
>
> Yes, publishing GOOD html is more work than posting stuff that
*probably*
> will display as you expect.  Writing accessible html is only trivially
> harder than writing good html.  Do you expect kudos for using a spell
> checker on your documents?  The fact that 99.9% of web pages don't
validate
> does not mean that there is not problems with this lazy practice!
>
> On Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:12 AM, Brian Kelly
[SMTP:lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk]
> wrote:
> > Hi Bruce
> >   Many thanks for the comments.  Have now fixed all but 2 of the
HTML
> > errors (still need to add a doctype and not sure what to do about
the
> > URL encoding which the validator doesn't like).
> >
> > The CSS has now been tidied up.
> >
> > Unfortunately the display bug still appears in Netscape :-(
> >
> > I guess I'll have to get into how browsers support CSS parse trees,
or
> > provide some user-agent negotiation.
> >
> > As I've said previously on this list, I'm afraid I disagree with
Kynn
> > when he says writing accessible pages is easy.  I think it's very
> > time-consuming and difficult to follow the guidelines and cater for
bugs
> > in the browsers :-(
> > (Although I'll keep on trying).
> >
> > Brian
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus
> > UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, England, BA2 7AY
> > Email:  b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk     URL:    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
> > Homepage: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly.html
> > Phone:  01225 323943            FAX:   01225 826838
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 04:31:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT