- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:49:24 +0000
Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > Interesting. But this lacks one important thing: a clear indication of > why some page doesn't qualify as accessible. Google seems reluctant to > disclose their criteria, and it's a pity. Indeed, and, from the broad indications they do give, there's /nothing/ to suggest that they favour conformant markup over non-conformant markup: "Currently we take into account several factors, including a given page's simplicity, how much visual imagery it carries and whether or not its primary purpose is immediately viable with keyboard navigation." http://labs.google.com/accessible/faq.html At least they point people towards WCAG, which makes using conformant, valid (X)HTML a priority two criterion. I think basic conformance is part and parcel of creating an accessible, interoperable site; but it's worth noting that there are plenty of captains of accessibility who reject that viewpoint, e.g.: http://www.anysurfer.be/ -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Friday, 15 December 2006 01:49:24 UTC