WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Illinois Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator/OneLast Comment


From: Robert Yonaitis
Date: Jan 24, 2007 3:40PM


Might help the users and the people on the list.

It would seem the method you are requiring is NOT the primary method
mentioned by the validator

Help for The W3C Markup Validation Service. Retrieved January
24, 2007, from W3C Web site: http://validator.w3.org/

An HTML document should be served along with its character encoding.

Specifying a character encoding is "typically done by the web server
configuration," by the scripts that put together pages, and inside the
document itself. IANA maintains the list of official names for character
encodings (called charsets in this context). You can choose from a
number of encodings, though we recommend UTF-8 as particularly useful.


-----Original Message-----
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jon Gunderson
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:00 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Cc: Nick Hoyt; Dan Linder
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Illinois Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator:
Sign up for free user acount

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 http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu

---- 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?