Re: Markup Validator: group categories of errors

Hi Antonio, all.

On 10 Nov 2005, at 00:42, Antonio Cavedoni wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005, at 15:40, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 13:58, you wrote:
>>> That would be less hostile than a wall of similar-looking errors, I
>>> think, and would make the page much more light and eye-scannable.
>>
>> Different people have different preferences.  So offer them a choice!
>
> True, but too many options = too much complexity. An app like the  
> validator shouldn’t have too many switches, methinks.

I think the discussion so far got to approximately the same point as  
last time(s) we tackled it. For those who don't remember or weren't  
around (no shame in that), the previous installment had bjoern show
http://www.bjoernsworld.de/temp/validation-results-layout-01.html
(not just a proof of concept, the results page was actually made from  
the actual results through an XSLT).

However there was some opposition to switching to this method:  
because of the cascading nature of validation errors, it's crucial to  
fix them in order. I subscribe to this, FWIW. It does not mean that  
the collapsed view is not useful, I think it would be, very much, but  
should be an alternate/optional view.

Therefore... The question is more (IMHO) one of giving the choice in  
views without creating a visual mess with too many options.


>> What I guess you're getting at is the difference between "compact"
>> or "verbose" on the one hand and "listed" or "DOM" view on the
>> other in AccessValet.
>
> Sorry, I don’t understand/know what the AccessValet is.

Valet is Nick's (excellent) suite of tools. Validation, link check,  
and an accessibility checker too. It's quite different from w3c's  
tools in a number of ways, so knowing about it is particularly  
interesting when discussing how our tools do/could/should work.
http://valet.webthing.com/

-- 
olivier

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:14:58 UTC