I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to find more and more.
You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You do a quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance, let alone the 1.1 strict they claim! Their css is a mess. And as far as WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A level is mind boggling. Then, there are those sites who actually technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact unusable... This upsets me on several levels. It can only impact negatively on those of us who actually do make sites that comply. If non-compliant sites claim compliance, it dilutes the effect of claiming compliance for those who do comply. But it also reflects on our competence. If so many people who claim compliance have apparently not a clue of what they are doing, how can a potential client be sure that the next guy (you, me) claiming they know what they are doing actually does? Perhaps this is a pointless rant, but it's seriously getting under my skin this week. Thanks for any feedback on this :) Nic ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
