Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
First, thanks to Bill for getting the thread back on track.
However, I still think my original point(s) are going unanswered. It's not about the desireability of every site being accessable at all times to all people but the cost of meeting this goal. I can't think of any other form of publishing that almost demands this conformity other than the web (hence my use of the world evangelist).
If your creating a web site for a small hardware shop does the client want to load the cost to ensure the accessability option?
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Egg Bramhill
First, thanks to Bill for getting the thread back on track.
However, I still think my original point(s) are going unanswered. It's not about the desirability of every site being accessible at all times to all people but the cost of meeting this goal. I can't think of any other form of publishing that almost demands this conformity other than the web (hence my use of the world evangelist).
If your creating a web site for a small hardware shop does the client want to load the cost to ensure the accessibility option?
This topic seems to provoke extremes (and bad spelling).
I think that if our html is invalid syntactically then it's just because we're lazy. There really is no excuse for it.
If our site is built without care for accessibility then it says something about our anticipated audience and our attitude towards a less fortunate minority who can't access the site as most people do.
For larger projects - corporate websites and the like - it's indefensible not to add accessibility options. For a tiny "Pa and Ma" website we often overlook accessibility as being too much hassle.
We've all ignored accessibility at times for one reason or another. I've done it, everyone's done it. I'll probably do it again. We all know that some websites don't translate well from a visual experience to a written one, or audio one. Sometimes there can be no accessible equivalent. Does this mean we should ignore accessibility? I don't think so.
We've debated this subject in terms of technical issues, time and cost, as though it's some optional extra, a nice to have because we may not need these features. Guilty as charged.
The real debate about accessibility is not technical or about time or money for a project. It's about our attitude as a society to people less fortunate than ourselves and I really don't know the answer to that.
Egg thanks for the debate. I will think much harder about accessibility from now on. I can't promise to be good always though. I feel slightly ashamed to have considered this as a technical problem for so long, rather than a human one.
Are there any free web readers available for download? It might be educational to try living life from the other side.
Paul
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Before anyone thinks I've gone bonkers - I do mostly flash stuff these days and it's not really accessible - very visual. That won't change for me, but at least I will think about taking the time to let someone whose visually impared have some chance to know vaguely what's going on. Ideally I'd add a text version. We'll see.
Paul
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
REmi, I can not quote becasue I do not have access to a browser reader program that I know of, but I would assume alt="" and null (as in not there) would result in the same output from the reader. So... I save the bandwidth and leave it out.
The HTML "validators" are simple programs with no real intuitive logic built in. Reminds me of english teachers grading essays... Who cares about content, are the t's crossed and the i's dotted?
so they see a missed t and the flags start popping up. A browser has no problem with this, why can't these "validators" be at least as smart as a browser. Until then, they are a waste of time and money to even test a site against them, much less spend time finding these false bugs...:rolleyes:
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Anyone that has Windows 2000, XP, or Vista has a browser reader for free. All Programs > Accessories > Accessibility in Win2K and XP. In Vista it is All Programs > Accessories > Ease of Access. Select Narrator.
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
So Bill have you pwayed with this? What does it do for null alt tags and alt="". Any difference? If so let us know... so I can either prove my case, or like usual, be proved a complete idiot.:rolleyes: :)
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
John, in alt="", the quotes marks are required if you are using an XHTML (which is an XML application) DTD for your markup. Alt= would be invalid syntax.
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
The HTML "validators" are simple programs with no real intuitive logic built in.
John, they validate your HTML code against the respective HTML specification and nothing more. :rolleyes:
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remi
John, they validate your HTML code against the respective HTML specification and nothing more. :rolleyes:
That's funny! :) Maybe that's why they are called "validators" and not "IADOWMBPDHTCPBPBMBTTSDs" = "Interpreters And Decoders Of Well Meaning But Poorly Defined HTML That Could Perhaps Be Presented By Most Browsers Today, To Some Degree" (TM)?
I'm not a coder at all, but isn't this simply a question about doing it 100% correct (the standards) or "to the best of your ability" --- whatever the end result may be?
Like in the last example --- remi and Lonk clearly know how alt-tags should be used, and John doesn't. But does it even have to concern him as he doesn't code crucial business sites (from a practical --- for the few visitors to his sites point of view?) I'm sure his sites are readable by most of his target audiences to one degree or another, right now at least.
Loosing a few visitor per month might not matter that much to John, myself or most people at TG with a website or two.
Digg OTH loosing 1% of visitors because of poorly coded HTML (that could have been done correctly) might cost them millions when somebody comes to buy them up.
Risto