W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: Accessible content management system

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <coordina@sidar.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:36:13 +0200
To: "'Cheryl D Wise'" <cdwise@wiserways.com>, <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>, <isforums@manx.net>
Cc: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <036701cc537d$0777c950$16675bf0$@sidar.org>
Hi all,

I can't agree with the idea that "you can have a site that validates
perfectly and still be completely unusable". I can't agree with the people
that think that "validate" mean pass an automatic test.

The validation must be manual with the help of 2 tools. 

But only with some users validation, supervised by an accessibility expert,
can really determine whether or not a site complies with WCAG. And then,
hardly the site may be unusable, as they have been taken into account the
needs of users.

All the best,
-----Mensaje original-----
De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] En nombre
de Cheryl D Wise
Enviado el: viernes, 05 de agosto de 2011 16:18
Para: joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie; isforums@manx.net
CC: 'Terry Dean'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Asunto: RE: Accessible content management system

As do I, validation is a tool like any other but it is not a holy grail. You
can have a site that validates perfectly and still be completely unusable
for everyone not just those using accessibility aids. There is no substitute
or shortcut to replace real world testing.

Cheryl D Wise
twitter: cdwise

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshue O Connor

Hi Ian,

> As mentioned previously, I personally do not view accessibility solely 
> in terms of conformance. And at the risk of being branded a heretic, I 
> personally would also like to see this view more widely accepted..

You are not alone in this view, I also share it.

Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 14:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:42 UTC