|
List Info
Thread: RE: Template for Accessible Web Page
|
|
| RE: Template for Accessible Web Page |
 
United States |
2008-03-25 14:57:50 |
Matt Morgan-May wrote:
>
>> * Invalid
>
> [MM] Yes, there are some bullets missing alt text, and
that shouldn't
> be, though in reality it doesn't affect the overall
accessibility.
> But do superfluous attributes here and there really
make a document
> inaccessible? Be careful of your answer:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdo
rward.me.uk%2F
Matt,
As you know, there is accessible and then there is
"compliant", and often,
in a world of required tick boxes, "compliant" is
mandated. I won't argue
the merits of this perspective/methodology, as most of us
have been around
long enough to be able to discuss the pros and cons of this
argument in our
sleep (newly arrived members to this list are encouraged to
search the
archives).
However, WCAG 1, Priority 2, 3.2 clearly states:
"Documents must validate to
published formal grammars". (...and that I type from
memory)
If the template has a DTD (it does), then it should validate
to that DTD -
period. Don't like the DTD in question? Choose another, or
write your own:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//Adobe Inc.//DTD Alt Text
Issue//EN"
"http://ad
obe.com/dtd/alt_text.dtd">
(Yes, writing a custom DTD is not for beginners, but it
*can* be done, and
in the early days of the web there were numerous alternative
DTD's flying
about. [http://tinyurl.com/yrvaqg])
One thing I've been doing at my current gig is going in and
actually
downgrading Drupal "Themes" doctypes to HTML 4.01
Transitional, as the
WYSIWYG editors tend to pump out better HTML than XHTML; I
choose valid over
"trendy" - as David D notes (and is well
documented), "It is suggested that
XHTML delivered as text/html is broken and XHTML delivered
as text/xml is
risky, so authors intending their work for public
consumption should stick
to HTML 4.01". [http://hixie.ch/advoca
cy/xhtml]
> [MM] This is required for standards mode in IE 6.
And see, this is why I find your position curious: clearly
you want things
to "work", and yet the prescribed W3C method to
ensure that things "work"
(use a standard) seems some-how not that important to you.
You state: "Be
careful of your answer", to which I echo the same
advice - remember here
that we are talking about a "template", not a
one-off page with an
un-escaped ampersand. To cavalierly dismiss images with no
alt text is,
uhm, against the grain - I at least am disappointed.
*********
Meanwhile, Haileselassie, Antonio O. (HQ-LM020) wrote:
> And, you are of course
> correct with the current WCAG 1.0 guideline on scripts,
but I don't
> necessarily agree with the antiquated guideline. It's
too limiting
> when access can still often be accomplished using
scripting properly.
Antonio,
Compliance. (See above)
Then there is the issue of "fall-back" or
degradation - if JS is not
supported, then what? At least one source suggests to me
that 5%+ users on
the web today are not using a JS supported user-agent
[http://tinyurl.com/ywmxm2]. Sometimes it's because of internal security
settings [http://tinyurl.com/ney39
], whilst other times it may be a
conscious decision on the part of the user: I recently
discovered an
interesting fact - JavaScript is murder on hand-held
user-agents (english =
cell phone browsers), and can drain a battery at a rapid
rate. So one more
reason for being judicious in the use of JavaScript - I am
predicting that
within 3 years 35%+ of all "web" traffic here on
campus will be consumed by
mobile/hand-held devices, so I for one am watching this
issue carefully.
And so while the WCAG 1 guideline might be
"antiquated" in your opinion, it
still has merit today, and again if you *must* be compliant
to the WCAG
(mandated), it is not a trivial matter. Use JavaScript if
you must, but
ensure that things continue to work when the 5% of users
visit your site.
Proper scripting allows for core/key functionality to remain
regardless of
user-agent settings (which is how I interpret the guideline:
"Ensure that
pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other
programmatic objects are
turned off or not supported.").
JF
===================================
John Foliot
Academic Technology Consultant
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-862-4603
===================================
|
|
| Re: Template for Accessible Web Page |
United States |
2008-03-25 16:08:33 |
On 3/25/08 12:57 PM, "John Foliot - Stanford Online
Accessibility Program"
<jfoliot stanford.edu> wrote:
> As you know, there is accessible and then there is
"compliant", and often,
> in a world of required tick boxes,
"compliant" is mandated.
In order to short-circuit a potentially lengthy thread, in
which we are
mostly in agreement, I must state the following. What was
being discussed
here were some templates we published for a product we no
longer ship
(Dreamweaver 8), templates which I have already classified
as not suitable
for use. I will also add that Dreamweaver CS3 comes with
over two dozen
templates which are not only valid, but come in your choice
of HTML 4.01 or
XHTML 1.0, Transitional or Strict; XHTML 1.1; or XHTML
Mobile 1.0. It also
has built-in validation and accessibility checking features.
(Apologies for
sounding like a commercial, but it is and always has been a
very good tool,
and I don't want this template talk to cloud that.)
Now, keeping in mind that the latest version actually has
what you want it
to have, here's where we disagree:
> However, WCAG 1, Priority 2, 3.2 clearly states:
"Documents must validate to
> published formal grammars". (...and that I type
from memory)
>
> If the template has a DTD (it does), then it should
validate to that DTD -
> period. Don't like the DTD in question? Choose
another, or write your own:
First, there's nothing in the product (even in earlier
versions) that
prevents content from validating. The issue was with
templates produced
after the fact.
Even then, validity itself is a best practice, not the sine
qua non. To say
that only valid HTML is worthwhile negates most of the web
as it exists
today -- that is, still mostly invalid. User agent and AT
support is more
important than simply validating, and the good news is that
they've done a
lot of work over the years to make much of that invalid
content work well.
If you want me to say it's wrong to release templates that
are invalid,
well, I've been saying that for years, and I said it again
in this thread.
But pouncing on any form of invalidity as a critical
accessibility failure
tips me off to an idealized view of how the web works, and I
remain a
pragmatist at heart. And you've probably had as many
arguments like this as
I have, so now I'll just leave it be.
-
m
|
|
[1-2]
|
|