Re: Validation questions

At 04:52 PM 24/03/99 -0800, you wrote:
>But the point that seems to be being missed is that it is trivial to add in
>a dtd at the top of your html and trivial to add in some alt tags (in fact
>both the programs in question provide a wysiwyg interface for adding in alt
>info.)

I did not make any mention of the DTD in my post as it was not the point I=
=20
wanted to address in it but let me assure you that ALT attributes (empty or=
=20
otherwise) are anything but trivial in regards to accessibility issues.

>So, why decide that because these programs dont do these things for you,
>that they are bad programs that are worthless?

Where in my post did you see me pass judgment on any HTML editor?   I was=20
merely answering a previous poster's questions about the utility of ALT=20
attributes in IMG tags, nothing more. I myself use DreamWeaver at times=20
although my main design tool is HomeSite so I certainly do not regard it as=
=20
worthless.  In fact I'd like to have more time to learn it but I mostly use=
=20
it for its site management features.  What I like about it is that it never=
=20
takes upon itself to change my code to suit its own purposes.  I have not=20
worked with it enough yet to pass judgment on code I would create in it=20
from scratch so I didn't do so.

>Also, not everyone writes for Lynx users. It really depends on the nature
>of the site.

I do not write for Lynx users specifically but valid code will make any web=
=20
page readable for them no matter how sophisticated the page layout is.  In=
=20
my work I have to write code that is as widely accessible as possible for=20
older browsers as well as for the more modern browsers but also for=20
specialized user-agents for the disabled like text to speech browsers.=20
Sticking to the standards really maximizes the chances that your content=20
will be accessible to most because it avoids proprietary mark up that=20
certain browsers may choke on.

>Our product requires NS or IE 3.1 or better. So if a Lynx user
>comes to our web site, we don't care if the site looks nice for them.

I hope your site is not a commercial one because you would be surprised at=
=20
how many people use text only browsers like Lynx or some outdated browser=20
that may not support graphics and this is often not a matter of choice to=20
them.  I don't think your company can afford to loose clients because your=
=20
pages are not designed to be readable in non-graphical environments and not=
=20
accessible to them (which I am not saying is the case).  It is a common=20
misconception that creating standards compliant code with strong emphasis=20
on Accessibility means the page has to look dull.  Not at all! Accessible=20
design is simply thoughtful design, not boring design.  This is not a=20
question of wether your site/content will look nice in Lynx but of wether=20
it is still accessible and easy to navigate in non- graphical=20
environments.  Proper use of ALT attributes and standards compliant code=20
are some of the things that really help in achieving that goal.

In another message you were asking if there are any browsers that refused=20
to display a page missing a proper DTD and while I do not know of any in=20
existence right now (which doesn't mean there isn't any), with the advent=20
of XML and browsers supporting HTML and other standards better (NS 5 and=20
Opera 4 both promise full support), the omission of the DTD may definitely=
=20
prevent a page from being displayed by a compliant browser in the not so=20
distant future.  For the sake of forward compatibility you should include a=
=20
DTD in your documents.  Otherwise, how will a browser that is XML compliant=
=20
know how to parse your code and what to make of it?  How will it know what=
=20
kind of mark up it is?  In XML you can create and name tags what you wish=20
and set their behavior in a DTD.  The browser expects the DTD or it will=20
spit error messages at you if it is missing.  Also, even if the browser did=
=20
know it was HTML it was dealing with (through a Content-type META tag=20
maybe?) without a DTD, how will it know to what version of HTML it should=20
interpret your code?  These issues have been discussed in depth on the=20
Techniques list recently and it has been really eye opening for me although=
=20
I was aware of accessibility issues.  Frank Boumphrey made a much more=20
compelling argument than I did here but I cannot find his posts now.  These=
=20
are not trivial matters at all and I believe they are well worth taking=20
into consideration in any Web site design project.

St=E9phane Bergeron

HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA