Re: Audience Based Validator User Interface (ISSUE-206)

Hi Mike,

> For my part, I've come around to thinking that we'd be better off without
> the <p class=success> or <h2 class=valid> part at all. Instead just emit
> any errors and warnings.

I tend to agree, when badges simply point to esoteric validation
pages, they may be interesting to web authors but they make very
little sense to others. IMHO it would be better if a validator's
result page listed errors and warnings with explanations of the
problem and a link for further help in fixing the problem(s).

Badges cause confusion for a non-technical people. Henri's clients are
misjudging products because of a validity a stamp or lack there of.
For the general public, who have little knowledge of code validity at
best they serve no constructive purpose and at worst give a false
sense of a product's value.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
> Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 2012-08-26 13:55 -0400:
>
>> First, to Henri (and others): is your sole criteria that <p class=success>
>> or <h2 class=valid> shows up in the results when validating pages which are
>> properly marked up with generator-unknown-alt attributes?  In particular,
>> you are ok with any number of warning or information messages being present
>> in the output?
>
> For my part, I've come around to thinking that we'd be better off without
> the <p class=success> or <h2 class=valid> part at all. Instead just emit
> any errors and warnings. And if there are no errors or warnings, just be
> silent. The binary pass/fail, valid/invalid indicator is not necessary and
> not really helpful. We're not handing out badges, and the purpose of the
> validator is not to give anybody a stamp of approval.
>
>   --Mike
>
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 20:41:50 UTC