W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re[2]: Compliance and html validation - how to interpret?

From: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 01:46:54 +0930
Message-ID: <E1962E8F1DF0D411878300A0C9ACB0F90246420D@exstaff4.magill.unisa.edu.au>
To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 06:59 AM 2002-04-27 , Denise Wood wrote:
>Hi everyone
>I am in the process of preparing a training site on Web accessibility for
>at my place of work and of course am aiming to ensure that site meets triple-A

Al Gilmna wrote:
IF you have the validation support for your graduates, THEN pursue the tack I
suggested earlier with a modest AA formal claim on the training materials site
and submit the question of "If we publish this DTD and our content is validated
to it, does that meet AAA or why not?" to WCAG group for an interpretation.

Hi Al

Thank you for your replies. I understand yourt train of thought and agree that
the training for staff must prepare them for authoring Web pages that can be
validated using criteria that are realistic given the "real world" constraints
relating to browsers etc. 

Just to clarify things a little, the training site is only meant to serve as a
basic introduction to Web accessibility - certainly there is no assumption that
authors will necessarily be able to create web sites that meet all the
requirements for triple-a compliance and html 4 validation using stringent
validation tools such as the W3C html validator. This site in an interim
measure while we begin the task of setting University Wide standards on Web
accessibility (which must still be endorsed by the University's Academic
Board). I am trying to raise the consciousness of staff of the major concerns
at this stage.

While we prepare the standards we are also intending to develop corporate style
sheets and templates that University staff will be required to use. The aim is
to ensure at least a degree of compliance (we can't control everything authors
do once they start using the templates) and also trying to establish an overall
corporate look for all Uni Web sites. So the intention is to minimize some of
the work for Uni Staff in the longer term. 

My dilemma is how to ensure that the site that I publish for this introduction
to Web Accessibility is a model of good practice - even though it is likely
staff will not be able to create a similar site without our yet to be developed
style sheets and templates. Your advice about a page explaining how we have
arrived at our claim for either double a or triple a compliance makes good

I'd still like some advice though about what actually constitutes the
difference in compliance levels (ie does the use of a table for layout even if
styles are used for all other markup make the site automatically only level 2
or 3 compliant, does the use of any deprecated language to accommodate lower
level browsers make it a level 2 or 3 site even if all other accessibility
checkpoints are met?). Can anyone point me to a site that is triple-a
compliant, validates as html 4 transitional AND looks fine in broken browsers
such as NS 4? If there is a way of achieving triple-a compliance and validation
for the site while still retaining an aesthetic look in NS 4 that is the ideal.
This would also help me in the development of the style sheets and templates
that will eventually be prescribed for all Uni staff.

Thanks again Al. I like the idea of the page explaining the design
considerations and how they relate to the compliance levels and will certainly
include such a page in the site.

Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 12:16:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:18 UTC