Posted by Neo Geshel on 05/16/05 20:52

Gazza wrote:
>
>
> Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:
>
>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>
>>> Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well the only people that will appreciate this:
>>
>> " This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
>> It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of
>> the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
>> And finally, this site uses no GIF�s in its design. Nada. None. PNG or
>> JPEG images only, folks!"
>>
>> Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are talking
>> about.
>
>
> Nor does the OP apparently:
> Fails CSS validation.

Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.continentalkit.com/css/global.css
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed” from
“Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! ”.

> Fails XHTML1.1 validation (right Doctype, wrong MIME type).

Really?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.continentalkit.com%2F
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get "Failed" from "This
Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1!"

> Fails Automated Section 508.
> Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

I don’t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
http://webxact.watchfire.com/
says that I only fail level AAA, and by only one checkpoint which I
can’t do anything about because of the way that the feedback form must
be processed by the server-side code. My hands are tied. If you really
wanna be a neurotic bitch about it, I’ll change the text to AA.

And as for Section 508, the same site clocks me in at having (once
again!) only one (1) error, which is a dubious issue, since I provide
exactly what they demand (the link to the plugin is INSIDE the <object>
tag; users that don’t have flash should see the link... this was a check
that I was asking about. As well, there is a static image that should
also be seen if the user doesn’t have flash).

> It's all very well trying to impress people, but to those in the know,
> you look a bit silly when you can't back those claims up...

I just did. Who's looking silly now?

> With images disabled, you have no obvious <h1> and with CSS disabled
> (but images on), you have it twice. On IE6 I don't see any image, even
> with images on.

Point taken. But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
with images turned off or CSS disabled.

> Your title for the acronym JPEG is wrong, it should be Photographic
> Experts, not Photographer�s Expert.

Mea Culpa. That, at least, can be “fixed”, and it has been.

...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

[Back to original message]