Comments on: Why Triple-A Sites Aren’t http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/01/06/why-triple-a-sites-arent/ The meanderings of a black widow... Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:12:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jermayn Parker http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/01/06/why-triple-a-sites-arent/#comment-9781 Jermayn Parker Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:28:31 +0000 http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/?p=116#comment-9781 Yeah I never really coded with Transitional after I read that in the actual doctype page it talks that you should use Strict rather than transitional, to me that taught me that I should stick with Strict.... Thanks for the article :) Yeah I never really coded with Transitional after I read that in the actual doctype page it talks that you should use Strict rather than transitional, to me that taught me that I should stick with Strict….

Thanks for the article :)

]]> By: Black Widow http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/01/06/why-triple-a-sites-arent/#comment-9674 Black Widow Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:31:31 +0000 http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/?p=116#comment-9674 I'd argue that it's better to use a Strict doctype as the approach imposed by this specification will tend to stop the developer from making some of the more common accessibility mistakes. Plus the greater emphasis on the separation of content from presentation will lend itself to a more accessible page. That said, given that many of the <abbr title="Web Accessibility Initiative">WAI</abbr> checkpoints require manual checking, it's still possible to produce a fairly inaccessible document that validates as Strict. <a href="http://accessites.org/" rel="nofollow">Accessites.org</a> has a good article on the subject of doctypes generally, explaining why <a href="http://accessites.org/site/2006/09/its-time-to-kill-off-transitional-doctypes/" rel="nofollow">it's time to kill off transitional doctypes</a>. I’d argue that it’s better to use a Strict doctype as the approach imposed by this specification will tend to stop the developer from making some of the more common accessibility mistakes. Plus the greater emphasis on the separation of content from presentation will lend itself to a more accessible page. That said, given that many of the WAI checkpoints require manual checking, it’s still possible to produce a fairly inaccessible document that validates as Strict.

Accessites.org has a good article on the subject of doctypes generally, explaining why it’s time to kill off transitional doctypes.

]]> By: Jermayn Parker http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/01/06/why-triple-a-sites-arent/#comment-9652 Jermayn Parker Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:58:07 +0000 http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/?p=116#comment-9652 Totally agree. I am in the process of a re-design of an Australian government website and the original designers claimed that it was a level 3 in accessibility. I did not believe them and now I know that they were falsly claiming it. Im guessing it was a 'mechanical accessibility validator' like you suggested in your article. A question I have raised about these levels of accessibility is does it matter what doctype you use?? <a href="http://germworks.net/blog/2007/02/23/different-doctypes-and-do-they-matter-for-standards/" title="different doctypes and do they matter" rel="nofollow">Read hear for more info</a> Totally agree. I am in the process of a re-design of an Australian government website and the original designers claimed that it was a level 3 in accessibility. I did not believe them and now I know that they were falsly claiming it. Im guessing it was a ‘mechanical accessibility validator’ like you suggested in your article.

A question I have raised about these levels of accessibility is does it matter what doctype you use?? Read hear for more info

]]>