- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:24:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net
- cc: Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
When http://www.betterhealth.com.au was launched in early 1998 it validated but did not meet the requirements to be level-A compliant to WCAG. (Last I lookewd they had made a number of improvements and I think it may now be level-A although I am not certain). In fact it is easy enough to make this happen. The point is not that validation equals accessibility, but that the two are related, and often one is a goo indicator that the person has thought about their site and done the other. Charles McCN On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote: Dear Group, I have made the assertion before that: If a page validates, odds are that it is accessible! In light of recent discussions, I think that this point warrants further promotion. Before that though, it should be investigate more. To this end, I challenge members of this list to do a little hunting... Can anyone cite a URL for a live site that formally validates as HTML 4 but does NOT meet the Priority 1 checkpoints of the WCAG? Thank you. Bruce Bailey http://www.dors.state.md.us/ -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 12:24:38 UTC