- From: <ivy_clark@aviva-asia.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:43:30 +0800
- To: <lois@lois.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Louis, Thanks very much for the clarification. I wasn't sure how page readers/translaters would interprete or respond to the HTML comments that marked the codes editable or not. Which is why i was comparing templates with basic html, CSS and javascripts. =) Warmest regards, Ivy Clark Application Analyst, ARO IT (Systems Integration) Aviva Asia Pte Ltd ------------------------ Ivy, > Does anybody know if use of Macromedia Dreamveaver's templates will > compromise a web site's universal accessibility? Current versions of DW do have much better support for accessibility than many other editing tools, but as discussed in other threads here, you still have to exercise close control - both in creating the templates to support accessibility, and in training authors using them. > Or should we just stick with basic html, CSS, and javascripts? I think you may be under a misapprehension as to the purpose and use of templates in DW. The templates do *not* appear in the browser, but are used as part of the editing process to generate finished HTML pages with whatever technology you choose to allow: all the end user will see (if he inspects the code) is some HTML comments marking parts of the code as editable or not. (I am not aware that templates themselves are any more or less accessible than the rest of the DW workspace to the *author* rather than the end user.) > What about 'include' clauses? Includes (if you mean SSI includes) also have no impact per se, since they are processed server-side, not client-side: so as long as what is in the include file is accessible, this poses no problem. Kind regards, Lois Wakeman -------------------------------- http://lois.co.uk http://siteusability.com http://communicationarts.co.uk
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 05:42:25 UTC