E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 1 (In chronological order)

From: Robert Yonaitis
Date: Wed, Jan 24 2007 3:20PM
Subject: Re: Education and Tools
No previous message | No next message

Jon:

Thanks for the feedback, I tested character encoding on the tester you
mentioned and it does not fail, in fact it uses the following words:
Tentatively passed validation

So in the case of the HTTP Header it seems a warning would be more
appropriate if your developers have no way of detecting the HTTP
Headers. On your second comment, the last thing I am sure you want is to
have developers use your tool, apply for a job, and then tell someone
that to design accessible they must stop using HTTP headers and put it
all in the source! (They may not get the JOB) I sometimes feel that one
of the most important things a tool can do is educate. In this case a
tool has to be void of opinion and if an opinion is required you must
move to WARNing versus fail. However, if you feel strongly that using
HTTP headers is incorrect then you should at least document that while
HTTP Headers are widely accepted it is the opinion of the Illinois
Functional Web Accessibility Evaluator that it is better to use meta.
This way if some poor designer is at a conference they can say they
subscribe to the Tools Opinion versus some sort of standard.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me!

Rob