W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Fw: Web accessibility Training (online)

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>
Message-ID: <20020313201138.H1002-100000@fenris.webthing.com>
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.
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 15:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC