- From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <coordina@sidar.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:36:13 +0200
- To: "'Cheryl D Wise'" <cdwise@wiserways.com>, <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>, <isforums@manx.net>
- Cc: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi all, I can't agree with the idea that "you can have a site that validates perfectly and still be completely unusable". I can't agree with the people that think that "validate" mean pass an automatic test. The validation must be manual with the help of 2 tools. But only with some users validation, supervised by an accessibility expert, can really determine whether or not a site complies with WCAG. And then, hardly the site may be unusable, as they have been taken into account the needs of users. All the best, Emmanuelle -----Mensaje original----- De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] En nombre de Cheryl D Wise Enviado el: viernes, 05 de agosto de 2011 16:18 Para: joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie; isforums@manx.net CC: 'Terry Dean'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Asunto: RE: Accessible content management system As do I, validation is a tool like any other but it is not a holy grail. You can have a site that validates perfectly and still be completely unusable for everyone not just those using accessibility aids. There is no substitute or shortcut to replace real world testing. Cheryl D Wise http://by-expression.com http://expressionwebforum.com http://wiserways.com twitter: cdwise -----Original Message----- From: Joshue O Connor Hi Ian, > As mentioned previously, I personally do not view accessibility solely > in terms of conformance. And at the risk of being branded a heretic, I > personally would also like to see this view more widely accepted.. You are not alone in this view, I also share it. Cheers Josh
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 14:36:51 UTC