Veine K Vikberg wrote:
If you try and validate anything towards the standards at Bobby (which is the measurement my clients in the public sector uses) there is no way you can get around the redundancy, if you only do onclick it gives you an error at level 2, that is what I mean with unforgiving.
So it's not WAI that's unforgiving, but Bobby in its miopic application of the guidelines (which are, at this stage, already quite out of date in many areas such as the one discussed here).
Well, from what my tired brain can read, you are saying that there is no device independent equivalent, so that is why WAI validators ask for the redundancy? I couldn't agree more with the people at W3C here, that it is in fact as misnomer, but then why hasn't it been picked up by WAI I wonder?
Because WAI are not the ones working on the (X)HTML standard.
In XHTML 2.0 it will come down to the specific implementation of device independent DOM User Interface Events
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Events-20001113/events.html
(in this case, DOMActivate), so there's hope...
If I could only convince people in decision making positions I would stop using it in a heartbeat
Unfortunately dumb mechanical validators like Bobby (checking against outdated guidelines) have done more harm than good in this respect. I too hope that decision makers will see that accessibility is often a continuum, rather than simply a list of checkpoints that need to be fulfilled blindly (no pun intended)
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re�dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
