WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Code Validation (was RE: spacing -   versus clearimages)

for

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mar 9, 2006 5:20AM

Hi Andrew,

> I'm not enough a standards
> wonk

Whats a wonk?

Does it mean we can call people who blindly follow "standards" as "wonkers" ;)

>> Thinking is good.

It sure is.

Josh

Joshue O Connor

Senior Accessibility Consultant

**Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)* *
National Council for the Blind of Ireland

Website:http://www.cfit.ie
E-Mail: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Tel: +353 1 8821915




Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>>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screw has been superceded by either the Philips (cross) or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>
>
>
>
>
>
>