WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: spacing -   versus clear images

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mar 7, 2006 10:10AM

> As a general rule of thumb, the more compliant the markup is,
> the more accessible to more devices it would be.

That is the general idea, but I'm not sure that it is actually
defensible. Are there any browsers that _require_ valid HTML? If not,
are you saying that there is no way to write a page that will display
and read (when applicable) correctly in these without that page being
valid? I'm not asking whether it is easier or not, just whether the
statement is accurate.

> > My problem is with the categorical dismissal of any suggestion that
> > doesn't validate. If a technique works in browsers and
> works for the
> > users, and the site is monitored and updated as user-agent support
> > changes over time, is it a horrible thing if it doesn't validate
> > today?
>
> If there are two options, but equally easy to implement, with
> one being standards compliant and the other not, it only
> makes sense to recommend the compliant method.

That's part of the point. Ava said, "[spacer] is better than   and
img and has no impact on readers". She says that it is better, so that
is her reason to implement it instead of a standards-based method. If
you don't agree, talk about the issue. Maybe it is better, maybe it
isn't. Using the standard techniques isn't better unless the support
for the standards also exists.

AWK