- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:28:22 -0800
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <charles@munat.com>
- Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 10:05 AM 1/19/2000 , Charles F. Munat wrote: >Agreed. So what if we promoted accessibility thus: >1. Make sure your code is valid. This will ensure that it works well on a wide variety of browsers and is an important first step towards accessibility. Don't "we" say this all the time? That's where I'm a bit confused, I think most people agree that it's a good first step. It simply does not meet the requirements for a priority 1 checkpoint. Note also that when I started teaching my online course, Designing For Universal Accessibility with HTML 4.0, I found some of my students were very scared by the concept that in addition to learning accessible web design, they'd "have to" learn HTML 4.0, CSS 1, etc to have any hope of making an accessible site. To many of us on this list, that seems a bizarre and in- comprehensible attitude -- however, we are the type of people who -enjoy- reading very technical specifications such as the HTML 4.01 spec and WCAG 1.0 plus techniques. Most web designers, though, are not us! There are many people who design web sites who have -no idea- what HTML 4.01 is, how to make a page validate, or what the tags look like. However, these people need to, or want to, make accessible web sites. If our solution is "you MUST learn <long list of very technical specs>" then we have LOST all the WYSIWYG creators! I would much rather teach them sound principles of accessible design than to require strict adherence to today's standards. For many of these people, it's not simply as easy as sitting down and learning CSS or HTML 4.01 over a weekend. If someone is using (for example) FrontPage, and we say "use valid HTML", we've put up our own artificial barrier because now that person has to learn HTML. On the other hand, if we say, "use ALT text on your images and remember that not everyone can see your multimedia," the bar for creating an accessible page is much lower than if spec adherence is demanded. Don't get me wrong -- I firmly believe that all code should be valid -and- accessible. However, by linking them together too strongly we make it impossible for someone who does not speak native HTML to create accessible web pages, and thus they won't even bother since it can't be done. Validity is good, but validity is not required for accessibility, period. As a followup to something a few paragraphs back, the WCAG has changed since my first online class, and no longer is there a huge emphasis on "you MUST learn HTML 4 and you MUST learn CSS" to meet the guidelines. I think this was a good change, because it makes the principles in the guidelines more approachable by the target audiences who need it most. Creating an accessible page should not require thinking like a CS grad student. -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 15:37:18 UTC