W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Using htlm editors to produce clean code?

From: Wayne Crotts <wcrotts@arches.uga.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:43:10 -0400
Message-ID: <001101bd8145$e96cf380$0ba8c080@kafka.uap.uga.edu>
To: "WAI" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Reality check, here.

In a perfect world, we would have folks learning a never-changing HTML
protocol with easy-to-use CGI, Active X, APA, and Java programs, all 100%
accessible regardless of the browser the reader is using.

In a perfect world, all those overworked, overobligated secretaries,
computer support staff, and interns thrown in charge of writing web pages
would want to learn proper HTML standards so to write good, accessible web

For these people in a perfect world, I agree with you, Charles, that there
should be easy access to universally accepted standards for accessible web
sites so that those willing to learn don't have to depend on 2nd rate HTML

However, I strongly believe pressure needs to be applied to those
manufacturers of those 2nd rate HTML editors to improve their product and
make them adhere HTML 4.0 and WAI standards, at least to give us people
living in a imperfect world a chance.


Wayne Crotts
Information and Computer Services Support
Program on Human Development and Disability
A University Affiliated Program
College of Family & Consumer Sciences
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

706-542-4815 (FAX)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
To: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Using htlm editors to produce clean code?

>Continuing the thred below...
>There is an essential dichotomy between those who want to learn how to
>understand and create HTML the best way possible, and those who want to
>write pages without learning anything more than necessary. My preference
>is to teach people how to do the stuff in the first place, rather than
>teaching them how to use a second-rate tool when they can do a first-rate
>job. One of the glories of HTML, after all, is that it does not take a
>degree to become an expert - the average mug can understand it in a few
>days, to the point of being able to understand the issues like
>accessibility and universal design which are very difficult for a
>FrontPage user, since they do not have any understanding of the coding in
>which many of the arguments must be based.
>The REAL problems to overcome with HTML is the fear of learning a new
>language, and the 'everything can be done with a point and click, and you
>can have a whizz-bang, bells and whistles and animation and multimedia
>edge to sell your product on the internet to the whole world'
>understanding of the web which is peddled in 30-second advertisements on
>TV. If we are not prepared to put some effort into doing things right we
>cannot expect the results to be worth having.
>The short answer to the question at the end of the thread is 'many
>programmers can tell you. Just add a line of code, recompile, and away
>you go...
>Charles McCathieNevile
>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>> > impelled to comment. ... [much opinon snipped] ... much effort is
>> > being spent (I may say wasted)  on trying to bolt-on additional
>> > accessibility to these misconceived web documents, when, if the
>> > originals had been designed in accordance with the principles and
>> > practices of the original WWW concept, no repair would have been
>> > necessary ...
>> >
>On Sat, 16 May 1998, LBehrens replied:
>> Most unbiased observers of the Web would probably agree that the
>> original WWW concept was that everyone (unskilled individuals included
>> if not in particular) have a venue and tools to publish globally
>> without being subjected to long periods of training.
>> What is needed is not for everyone exposed even temporarily to the
>> internet to be goaded into becoming highly-skilled HTML authors;
>> rather we need to find temporary solutions for the problems inherent
>> in the present tools (which is exactly what the original poster
>> requested).
>> Does anyone out there know a way to force the Composer segment of
>> Netscape Communicator to include a DOCTYPE declaration, as a step
>> toward validation and accessibility, as requested by the original
>> poster?
Received on Saturday, 16 May 1998 23:43:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC