WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Code Validation (was RE: spacing -  versus clear images)

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mar 8, 2006 1:30PM

> > Should we start a pool?
>
> I already stuck out my neck, but my *guess* is that we are
> still 2 years out...

Oooh! We _should_ start a pool! I'll bet sooner than 2 years.

> > Generally I don't need to but there does need to be
> decision making on
> > the part of the developer to determine whether a particular
> technique
> > is beneficial, harmful, valid, cheap, expensive, etc. in
> > order to make the right decision for the scenario at hand.
>
> Right, and those decisions are contrasted against... Standards.

Sure. I'm not anti-standards!

> The whole point of Standards is that they remain "standard".
> As a fundamental starting point, all future 'standards" are
> *supposed* to degrade gracefully, or be supported by earlier
> Standards. That's the point.

I'm not sure I agree with the latter part. I'm not enough a standards
wonk to tell you whether all standards are really supposed to degrade to
something prior.

> As an analogy, look at the lowly screw. Originally, most
> screws had slot-top heads, and the blade screwdriver is
> *still* the most common screwdriver out there. Yet in the
> world of modern manufacturing and construction, the slot top
> screw has been superceded by either the Philips (cross) or
> Robertson (square-tip), as, from an automated and practical
> perspective these screws are easier to use. However,

Have you ever tried to use a blade screwdriver with a Robertson screw
head? Didn't someone decide that a particular variant method was somehow
better for them? Or was Robertson a standards committee? Shouldn't
Robertson screw heads have a blade slot also? (Maybe they did until
"screw agent support" was sufficiently widespread!).

I'm being difficult, but all I want is for there to be room for people
to use their brains when developing. If you don't want to think, then
you absolutely should use the standards. Even if you do want to think
you will probably arrive at the same conclusion, but maybe you won't.
Thinking is good.

> shortcoming, they now have to go back and repair all of their
> work (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/10/12/480242.aspx).

This was, for those who thought about it, a chance that they took in
order to accomplish a goal that existed originally. Part of thinking
through the situation is recognizing that a current solution may not
work forever.

> Developers who steered clear of hacks can read that article
> and smile to themselves, as they continue to move forward,
> not having to go back and rework existing stuff they spit out
> "back then".

That's great that they can enjoy watching those who employed hacks
getting their comeuppance, but are those developers' sites left with the
same look that they may not have been pleased with settling on because
they didn't use some useful hack? Maybe. So then they go and redesign
it again anyway? Possibly. Sites need maintainence.

> And I will concede you this - I too have been forced to make
> compromises based on browser inadequacies. But this is due,
> in part, to the fact that the browsers (wait for it) do not
> also conform to the published standards.

Sure. So you looked at the alternatives, thought about it, and made the
best decision. Sounds great. That's different than strict
standards-compliance.

> So if we expect the browsers to be standards compliant, how
> can we justify our use of hacks, work-arounds or other "solutions"?

It takes more than expectations. Developers need the browsers and other
user agents to _be_ standards compliant before we can consistently avoid
hacks.

> > I wonder what percentage of sites developed with valid code
> also use
> > HTML headings and explicit label associations - I bet it's less than
> > you might hope.
>
> Perhaps, but more than I suspect you think. The rapid rise
> of Standards based blogging tools, the advances in SEO
> techniques, etc. have all impacted on the 'force' of valid
> code development, especially the proper use of headings.

If we're talking about a per-developer instance, you don't get to count
all of the google and movable type blogs individually!

> Explicit label associations may be harder, but the current
> crop of WYSIWYG dev tools have at least made this a lot
> easier to accomplish.

Glad to hear!

AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems
<EMAIL REMOVED>