Samuel Richardson wrote:
Your confusing web accessibility with web standards, a page can be valid XHTML while not being accessible, likewise this works in reverse.
I believe that Karl rightly meant web standards in the wider sense. It's not just the syntax side (valid XHTML, CSS layout) but the semantic/structural side of web standards (headers are marked up as H1, H2, etc, inputs and other form widgets are appropriately labelled, etc)...
Of course, a lot of AT compensate for tag soup, and a page that is just shy of validation because of some trivial syntax error is not, in most cases, going to cause a huge accessibility barrier. However, a site/system that completely does away with correct semantics, uses triple- or quadruple-nested tables for layout, etc will be a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to use by users relying on AT.
P -- 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 __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
