- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:44:45 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Paul Bohman <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>
- cc: "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Paul Bohman wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, David Poehlman wrote: > > >> http://www.webaim.org/training2002/index.php > > >>The above page is by no means one of the worst offenders, at least if > we allow that their promotional video is not essential content... I'm > going to sound off ... it delivers invalid HTML ... And - oh the irony - > at the bottom of the page in smallprint that becomes legible only by > viewing the source, "If you notice any accessibility errors on this > site, please tell us!" > > --- > > My response: > > Thank you, Nick, for taking the time to evaluate the accessibility of > this page. > > I am not the developer directly in charge of the training or the page > that you reference, but I am the Technology Coordinator for WebAIM, so I > have taken it upon myself to answer your concerns. > > > 1. I'm not sure why you complain about the use of video on the site, > since all of the video is captioned, a full transcript is available, I apologise for being unduly harsh. I've been on a rather short fuse for the past few days for (thankfully temporary) health reasons. Looking at your page I saw three forms of movie, and by the time I discovered the transcript (why is it 1.7Mb .. oh, that's something else) I was already geared up to flame you:-( I see you've now moved it to be a little more obvious. > audio-only format is available (with descriptions), three video formats > are available, two bandwidth options are available for each format, Yes. Call me a cynic, but when I see that much packaging, I tend to dismiss the idea that there might also be a worthwhile product. Like the old adage whose expression today might be "if you have nothing to say, then say it with powerpoint". > 2. At WebAIM we always strive to have valid HTML in our documents. This > is a high priority for me. Unfortunately, a couple of errors were > inadvertently introduced, which we have corrected. Thanks for pointing > that out. IMNSHO it's far better to ensure that your pages are automatically validated (BTW, you have now introduced a new validation error). Better still to use publishing tools that guarantee good markup. See for example <URL:http://css.nu/markup/markup-entities.html> for an illustration of why validation is necessary but not sufficient. > Lastly, considering the fact that we do have a link which invites you to > inform us of any accessibility concerns that you might have, why did you > not use it? Long experience of being ignored - together with a "damned if I'm going to use a link I can't read in my browser" attitude. Anyway, FWIW, Page Valet issues a number of accessibility warnings for your page. My assessment of those is that the ones at single-A can probably be ignored, but you'd clearly need to fix that presentational markup to earn a double- or triple-A. -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 15:44:52 UTC