IF ADA compliance is important to you look at FP2003
(which has an ADA compliance checker built in)
See
http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/accessibility.mspx
--
| Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
|
| > A lot of them are adhering to very exacting versions of the standards. That
| > doesn't work in the real world. To get things to look and behave properly,
| > you have to do a lot of tricks to get them to work in the various browsers.
| > I pretty much ignore a lot of the validators simply because most of their
| > complaints are frivolous, such as warning about incorrect meta tags, which
| > don't matter anyways and can be very useful for us as developers for our own
| > information. FP and most of the other modern WYSIWYG editors do an excellent
| > job of crafting compliant HTML that works.
| >
| > Hope this helps
| > Mark Fitzpatrick
| > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| >
| > | >
| >>I have two web sites that perform well in all browsers and look fine, yet
| >>when I have the HTML looked at by say TIDY
http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/tidy
| >
| > it
| >
| >>reports hundreds of errors and it does the same for top ranked sites I
| >
| > have
| >
| >>viewed for years which I know work and perform fine?
| >>Can anyone tell me why these 'tidys' insist that the sites are wrong when
| >>they are not?
| >>Does anyone know HTML checker that will tidy it up without me having to
| >>spend hours learning HTML ?
| >>Thanks Keith
| >>
| >>--
| >>
| >>
| >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
| >>"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
| >>There is a solution!"
| >>
| >>Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
| >>The most powerful anti-spam software available.
| >>
http://mail.spaminspector.com
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
| Pardon me, but W3C standards *do* work in the "real world." We use them
| all the time.
|
| Or perhaps the "real-world" to which you refer doesn't include people
| with vision and other disabilities. Validator warnings are not frivolous
| and can mean the difference between easy access to a web page to
| outright inaccessibility. Indeed, the Web Accessibility Initiative
| guidelines at W3C speak to these issues (
http://www.w3.org/WAI/). From
| a U.S. government perspective (if it applies to you) the issues of
| accessibility have been codified into a law known as Section 508
| (
http://www.section508.gov). Other countries have similar initiatives in
| place. In all cases, being compliant to standards means that the
| various tools that access information over the Internet can continue to
| be interoperable.
|
| The claim of "compliant HTML that works" while at the same time dissing
| the validators is disingenuous. If the page doesn't validate, it's not
| compliant. Otherwise, to what standard is the HTML compliant?
|
| We recommend and support FrontPage to clients in many circumstances to
| help them maintain content and layout on basic web sites. We can
| certainly put mechanisms in place to ensure that non-compliant code
| generated by FP is filtered out and stays off the web site. But we
| won't pretend that FP always generates compliant HTML. FP users should
| be aware of these limitations so they can make informed decisions as to
| how they will use the tool.
|
| As to Keith's original question -- you'll need to decide how important
| standards compliance and web accessibility are to the web site you're
| working on. If these are important to you, you may need to get your
| hands dirty in the HTML to clean it up. The W3C validators can
| certainly help point out where the errors are in your HTML code.
|
| Were you looking at the validators out of curiosity or did you have some
| real concerns that needed to be addressed?
|
| - O.
|
|
|
|
| --
| Orest Kinasevych
| --------------------------------
| OKINA CONSULTING
| "Technology Solutions for Publishing"
|
|
http://www.okina.net
| --------------------------------
|
|
| For the benefit of all readers, please reply directly to the newsgroup.
| We recommend
http://www.spamex.com for disposable email addresses.
