- From: Jorge Fernandes <jorge.f@netcabo.pt>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:38:02 +0100
- To: "Cheryl D Wise" <cdwise@wiserways.com>
- Cc: <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>, <isforums@manx.net>, "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Don't underestimate the automatic evaluation. I have been seeing "real world testing" (based on user testing or pericial evaluation) that also produce "completely unusable for everyone not just those using accessibility aids" denying some evidence tested automatically. Cheers, Jorge ++início do rodapé ⠨⠚⠕⠗⠛⠑ ⠨⠋⠑⠗⠝⠁⠝⠙⠑⠎ | jorge.f@netcabo.pt UniversalAccess.blogspot.com On 5 Aug 2011, at 15:17, Cheryl D Wise wrote: > 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 14:38:48 UTC