Re: Fwd: NetMechanic Results on www.hwg.org

Kynn,

The issue of greatest concern is that their advice seems to be based on
misunderstanding of how browsers work. To say that longdesc is incompatible
with browsers is vague enough as to be misleading. To advise against using it
on this basis is, as you point out, extremly detrimental to accessibility and
in my humble opinion to the development of the web itself.

I'll take a little time to compose a polite letter and make the points as
clearly as I cn with appropriate suggestions and references, so I exect I'll
send it some time next week.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  I ran a test on http://www.hwg.org/ at http://www.netmechanic.com/
  today.
  
  They told me that I'd "misspelled" a lot of words, like XML and
  XHTML, plus they kindly informed me that <!DOCTYPE> is not a valid
  HTML tag.
  
  The thing that scares the heck out of the accessibility instructor
  within me is rating of our "browser compatability".  The things it
  identifies as "incompatible" all fall into one of the two 
  categories:
  
  (a) Style sheet support, such as SPAN elements or CLASS/ID
       attributes, which specifically degrade gracefully when CSS
       is not present, and
  (b) Attributes/elements added for accessibility's sake, such
       as IMG LONGDESC, HTML LANG, ABBR, or LABEL.
  
  Now, I don't mind being identified as "incompatible" with old
  versions of browsers, but the PROBLEM here is their "advice" to
  web designers:
  
  "Try to avoid using a tag or attribute if it is incompatible with
  more than 10% of your audience."
  
  THIS IS SO UTTERLY WRONG.
  
  Here's what they say for LONGDESC:
  
  Tag:                IMG
  Attribute:          LONGDESC
  Lines:              78
  Visitors Affected:  99.00%
  Microsoft:
     3:                N
     4:                N
     5:                N
  Netscape:
     2:                N
     3:                N
     4:                N
  
  In other words, since 99% of browsers out there don't use the
  information, you shouldn't include LONGDESC.
  
  In short:
  
        Their advice is actively ANTI-ACCESSIBLE.
  
  Would someone care to join me in writing to these people about the
  inherent problems in advising against the use of proper HTML code
  as they are doing here?  It might mean more if we all got together.
  
  This could also be an issue for the evaluation/repairs tools to
  look at, but I don't know what exactly you'd want to do.
  
  PS:  The url below expires in 2 days.
  
  --Kynn
  
  >Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:59:18 -0400
  >To: kynn@kynn.com
  >Subject: NetMechanic Results
  >From: webmaster@netmechanic.com
  >
  >[ad snipped]
  >
  >NetMechanic has completed the tests you requested for:
  >
  >http://www.hwg.org/
  >Job Configuration: One Page, Local Links, Remote Links, Images, HTML Standard: HTML Version 4.0 Standard
  >
  >You can find your results at:
  >
  >http://beta.netmechanic2.com/summary.cgi?f=244225225-06389&s=NetMechanic&fv=2
  >
  >Reports will be stored at this URL for the next 2 days.
  >
  >
  >
  
  -- 
  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

Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 00:16:25 UTC