Most of which are caused by the use of XHTML style tags within a HTML
4.0 doctype, along with that age old favourite, not encoding the 's (oh
the bain of my life that one!)
I suspect whacking an XHTML doctype on would solve a lot of the
additional errors that are thrown up - the W3C validator does seem to
get a little confused by the former.
I started at the BBC as a client side developer doing HTML and
JavaScript (starting in 2000), and I do know that the people who build
the BBC website are passionate about doing a good job - about
accessibility, about validation. It used to annoy me no end that
certain coding practises I had to at the time in order to make the
designs work [1]. However the BBC website is a large thing with many
people and many systems involved. Changing practises on it will take
time :(
Not an excuse, just an explanation.
For contrast it might be worth looking at this checked BBC News page
from February 2000.
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org
%2Fweb%2F2229064106%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F
Yes there's less errors, but sucks through teeth the types of errors
found... Tut tut tut! Alt tags missing all over the place... So things
have got better in some ways...
[1] I spotted this old chesnut in the BBC News website -
table
form
trtdinput type=text/td/tr
/form
/table
a horrible hack which predates mainstream CSS usage and which allowed us
to place a form in a page and not have a 1 line margin underneath it.
Obviously you can use CSS now, so I suspect it's a piece of code that
has just been kept in through successive recodes...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Chetwynd
Sent: 01 November 2006 18:31
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] checks balances: validating the BBC
checks balances: validating the BBC
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://news.bbc.co.uk
97 errors which is about par
makes it difficult to consider or discuss the accessibility
of BBC web1.0 product.
suffice it to say they have a process all there own, which
awaits an independent accessibility audit report, afaik.
there have been some published reports that discuss small
parts of the rather large whole
It will require some hard talking to ensure that web2.0
product is an improvement in accessibility.
The media player wasn't smil compliant last time they asked
for reviews, whereas realplayer makes an attempt...
cheers
Jonathan Chetwynd
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To
unsubscribe, please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
