- From: Robert Neff <rneff@bbnow.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:55:38 -0600
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Actually, I recommend using page authoring tools in conjunction with HTML & CSS Validator & Bobby. Lets face it there is not one tool that is a total solution AND people or web developers will not learn HTML and consider it to be too technical. The purpose is to be productive and get the information up and until the tools will do this automatically for us, we have three separate levels of developers. The first is beginner, who probably in not a coder, but can certainly help the office. Second is advanced coder who may or may not know HTML. Third is someone who knows HTML and how to use tools and takes the time to include Remember design houses do not require HTML - they want developers who can post pages. There is a cost and schedule impact to take the time to do this and comes back to customer requirements. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Bruce Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:33 PM To: 'Anne Pemberton' Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables Dear Anne, If you've heard these arguments over and over again, why don't you listen? Charles is vocalizing the consensual opinion of every informed person on this list. Why don't you believe him? If a hundred people tell me that I am wrong about something, eventually I actually start to consider that my preferred belief may, in fact, be incorrect! Certain group or groups of disabled folks (e.g., the blind) are unable to use pages created in Front Page. Please stop recommending it to newbies. If you continue to use it, please also use Bobby (or Tidy, or some other repair tool) to fix the P1 errors FP routinely introduces. You have missed something. I see SEVERAL better solutions than using FrontPage. I understand your reluctance to follow Charles advice about learning HTML. Really, it's not that hard. It is pretty much impossible to use ANY html editor and produce valid and accessible code without understanding HTML. I hope this changes, but there ARE other tools that are not nearly as error prone as FrontPage. The composer built into Netscape Communicator doesn't produce valid HTML either, but it's better than FP, and it's free. Allaire HomeSite is inexpensive, it can be used in a WYSIWYG fashion, and it has a built-in validator. Adobe PageMill (might be discontinued) is pretty good, and not expensive either. Finally, as Charles pointed out, NotePad is free and is included on your school systems too. If you insist on recommending FP to teachers, please make it clear to them that the results are unprofessional (i.e., not syntactically valid) and probably inaccessible (i.e., don't meet all the P1 checkpoints of WCAG 1.0). To echo what Charles wrote earlier, the term "valid html" has a very discrete and formal definition. Validity is a yes/no status item. One can test a page for validity by parsing it through the W3C validation service at URL: <http://validator.w3.org/> Saying that a page is "valid to me" is nonsensical, devote of meaning, and just plain silly. I use a very concrete definition for web accessibility, and recommend that you do too: "An accessible web page is one that meats all the P1 checkpoint of the WAI WCAG." As Kynn is quick to point out, sites can be more or less accessible than other sites, but this is using another definition of term "accessible". It is a little confusing, but we haven't come up with clearer language, especially since "accessible" means something completely different in the mainstream. Using "B" and "I" versus "strong" and "emphasis" is NOT merely a matter of preference. The former is highly indicative of a profound lack of understanding of the philosophy behind HTML. It is routed in conventions associated with the print (and paper) medium and demonstrates an inability to make the abstraction to the proper creation of electronic documents, especially those destined for the Web. Are you not clear that print (and paper) is highly inaccessible? Why would you want to constrain yourself to an anachronistic model when the Web can be so liberating, especially to people with disabilities? Anne, I am sorry if I sound like I am picking on you. I think you are courageous in that you keep presenting the simple arguments of the many (majority?) of web authors who truly misunderstand the medium. Those folks are reluctant to voice their opinions on this list, so it is helpful to have them expressed. By bringing these views up, you give us the opportunity to rebut them. Thank you. -- Bruce > ---------- > From: Anne Pemberton > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:52 AM > To: Charles F. Munat; 'Bailey, Bruce' > Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: RE: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables > > Charles, > > Very good arguments, and the very ones I've heard over and over. > I've > been referred to the Neilson site, to read over and over his disclaimer > for > not having illustrations because he doesn't know how and doesn't feel it > important to learn or get help to do it. And he's saying so on a public > site that is much-ballyhooed as an important source of reasons to do > accessibility "right".... > > Unless someone can state that a certain group or groups of disabled > folks > are unable to use pages created in Front Page, I will continue to use the > tool and recommend it to newbies. Who says you need an add-on to put alt > text? You don't .... you right-click on the image, click on properties, > and > type in your alt text. > > Unless I've missed something, there is no other html authoring tool > that > is easy to use (for newbies, wysiwyg, of course), that we don't have to > spend any money to acquire, and that can be learned in a short time. > Short > of telling teachers they can't do their own web pages, which is exactly > the > opposite of what I need to tell them, I don't see a better solution. Do > you? > > Anne >
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 14:54:02 UTC