WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Illinois Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator: Sign up for free user acount


From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Jan 24, 2007 3:10PM

I am going to discuss this issue with our developers and this maybe an area where we want to provide a warning. Our current requirement is based on what HTML validation tools want to validate content [1,2].

I should also point out FAE [3] is designed to help people that are looking to do accessible design, rather than accessible repair. The tool is trying to direct people in making conscious accessible design decisions, not to try to fix content after it has already been designed. The result is that some of the tests will not be welcome to people who are just trying to fix up inaccessible designs.


1. W3C HTML Validation Service

2. Web Design Group Validtors

3. Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:18:40 -0500
>From: "Robert Yonaitis" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Illinois Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator: Sign up for free user acount
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Thanks for the clarification. So since we are using phrases like "In General" and "the author is probably" should we not do what is done in tons of validation suites and say WARNing, because something could probably be wrong versus telling all developers to rewrite their code which in cases could be rewriting an application? In the case of the headers they are easily read and then perhaps a WARNing on that, maybe some text,
>"Warning, Character Encoding Found in the HTTP header but not in the STATIC source and this may imply a problem might exist"
>This may be safer then having developers change their applications or dynamic code or even 1000's of static pages that admittedly could be done quickly if they decide is really required. By doing this the tool will have more value and be a aide to the developer and consultants doing any kind of testing.
>What do you think?