- From: Cheryl D Wise <cdwise@wiserways.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:50:18 -0600
- To: 'Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo' <coordina@sidar.org>, <isforums@manx.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I was referring to an earlier comment in this thread about how some CMS or another wouldn’t "validate" to XHTML Strict and the corresponding inference that its failure to do so make it inaccessible. In my experience when someone uses the term "validate" they are referring to automated checked which I agree is not sufficient. Cheryl D Wise http://by-expression.com http://expressionwebforum.com http://wiserways.com twitter: cdwise -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo 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.
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 14:51:43 UTC