- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@asu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:03:43 -0700
- To: "'carole@designs.com'" <carole@designs.com>, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- Message-id: <A021872EC2BDD411AB3600902746A055016048A0@mainex4.asu.edu>
Carole Gay quoted a student, in RE <http://civerson.com/>: > The button links and the wavy water use the EMBED tag . . . and: > Bobby and CSS validate just fine, but not Strict HTML. Bobby [1] does not "validate just fine" -- check the output at [2]. You need to do "user checks" -- e.g., "Make sure pages are still usable if programmatic objects do not function. (11 instances)". The page is _not_ usable if programmatic objects do not function. There is no alternative textual content for these objects, either. Note that Bobby is not a very useful accessibility verifier; it itself violates W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [3] and uses invalid HTML [4]. Ms. Iverson's page uses attributes like "align" which are not in the Strict DTD. Transitional would be more appropriate. That won't help with the <embed>s, though. They just don't exist in real HTML. To validate, she will need to write a custom DTD which defines such elements. If the designer wants to use HTML4 Strict, life will be much easier if she uses <img> for these objects. There is no reason that they need to be Java or Flash. JavaScript rollovers will achieve the button effect (and the page will still work without scripting enabled), and an animated GIF could give the waterfall effect. 1. <http://bobby.cast.org/bobby/> 2. <http://bobby.cast.org/bobby?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fciverson.com%2F&output=Submit# UserChecks0> 3. <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/> 4. <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cast.org%2Fbobby%2F&doct ype=Inline> -- Thanasis Kinias Information Dissemination Team, Information Technology Arizona State University Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A. Qui nos rodunt confundantur et cum iustis non scribantur.
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 14:03:52 UTC