- From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:08:13 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Sure, I'll give it a shot. --wendy At 02:54 AM 9/23/99 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Does anyone have a good conformance profile for Hotmetal? > >Wendy, do you want to do one? > >Charles > >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: > > Hello, > > I have used SoftQuad's HoTMetaL for the last three years. It is extremely > easy to use and includes some accessibility checks. The checks are more > stringent than WCAG 1.0, however, so I actually don't use them. I just > ran > one of my pages through and received a summary of 16 inaccessible elements > (yikes!?). These messages seem to by in synch with an old version of the > Unified Guidelines. I claim the page conforms at the AAA level of WCAG > 1.0. > > Ben, the Webmaster here at Trace, uses HomeSite and TopStyle. He says > that there are not explicit accessibility checks that it performs but that > "you can pretty easily customize the tag inspector feature to look for > certain attributes within elements, validate for them, etc..." > > It's going to be hard to recommend a tool that will create a nice layout > without gunking it up with tables. Although, Adobe's GoLive uses a table > grid and seems to lay things out without needing to create a new table for > each element (this statement is not based on extensive use). I haven't > played with the other WYSIWYG tools in a while... > > At this point, the best recommendation may be to use a tool that produces > clean HTML (like HoTMetaL, HomeSite, Amaya, etc.) and check accessibility > with Bobby. > > just fyi, > --w > > At 08:30 PM 9/16/99 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >SoftQaud's HoTMetaL 5, Allaire's HomeSite, are two pieces of Software > I have > >heard good reports about, although I have not been able to test them for > >myself. W3C's Amaya creates clean HTML, and as WYSIWYG editor's go it > is not > >bad, although it is not very accessible itself at the moment. I use > it, and > >it allows pretty well any accessible authoring practice, and provides > clean > >valid HTML 4.0, which is nice. Othrewise, familiarity with HTML and a text > >editor that supports HTML (emacs, dreamweaver, cyberstudio, hotdog, > and many > >other popular editing tools fall into this category) are a good idea. > > > >One of the reasons for the Authoring Tools group to try and review > >implementations is to e able to anser just such questions. I agree that it > >would be nice if there were easy answers. On the other hand, > collecting these > >requests is going to assist developers in justifying the work to make > their > >tools compliant, which will also help the situation. > > > >Charles McCN > > > >On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > > > > I just got off the phone with one of the Deans of Orange Coast > > College (a southern california junior college) -- if you've been > > following Cynthia Waddell's posts on IG, you know that California > > community colleges are required to attain at least level single A > > compliance with the WCAG. > > > > The chap who called me said that his technical people advised > > against using FrontPage 98 because it didn't produce accessible > > web pages -- and he wants to know what does. > > > > I didn't have an answer. I still don't have an answer. The HTML > > authoring tool industry should be ashamed of the fact that I don't > > have an answer. But at least this group is working toward that > > goal. > > > > I know that we will complete our guidelines, and I know that we > > will be able to evaluate existing tools against our standards, and > > I know we'll have a "what's okay and what's bad and what's better" > > answer soon -- "soon" being on the order of several months. > > > > Right now, though, Orange Coast College needs an answer -- they > > want to do the right thing, they just want to know what that is. > > They want to know which software they should start training their > > instructors to use. > > > > Anyone got an answer that's more useful than mine? I mumbled something > > about FrontPage being not quite as bad as it used to be, and about > > Dreamweaver apparently being decent -- but I don't use a web editor > > myself (all coded by hand or via perl script) so I have no direct > > experience. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > Kynn > Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ > > Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain > Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ > > Catch the Web Accessibility > Meme! http://aware.hwg.org/ > > > > > >--Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org > >phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles > >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI > >MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA > > wendy chisholm > human factors engineer > trace research and development center > university of wisconsin - madison, USA > > >--Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org >phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA wendy chisholm human factors engineer trace research and development center university of wisconsin - madison, USA
Received on Thursday, 23 September 1999 10:09:59 UTC