AAA AAA合规性？ 34,000个网站似乎都这么认为。 [英] Triple AAA compliance? 34,000 sites seem to think so.
问题描述
Google发现：
结果1 - 20约34,000个链接到
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance
-
Andy Mabbett
说不！强制性身份证：< http://www.no2id.net/>
免费我们的数据：< http：//www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Google finds:
Results 1 - 20 of about 34,000 linking to
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
推荐答案
2006年7月29日星期六，Andy Mabbett写道：
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Google发现：
结果1 - 20约34,000链接到
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance
这只是*声明*一致性的那些。
我从谷歌获得的列表中的第一个，至少失败了
其中一个客观测试（不要使用弃用的标记）有几个
警告。
W3C HTML验证器也判定它无效，CSS检查器
统治了它的HTML所以糟糕的是它拒绝检查CSS，直到HTML
被修复。
这本身就取消了页面f的资格或者超过A-level WAI，
IIRC。
（在这种情况下，我使用了内置于
$中的检查器URL b $ b Pederick工具栏 - 没有冒犯Nick Kew，他为此写了一些优秀的软件 - 我太懒了。）
至于我的主观测试，我拒绝相信alt文本
其中说：
级别三A一致性图标，W3C-WAI Web内容可访问性
指南1.0
真正理解替代文字的目的。该图标带有的实质性信息是（即使它不是真的很好），但是符合三A-W3C-WAI Web内容可访问性 br />
指南1.0"，这将是我最接近
替代文本的提议。把它交给一个盲人读者，这个
实际上是一张他们看不到的图像，完全没必要，而且b $ b b b b .......
/>
字体大小以px为单位指定，包括Verdana。
所以，虽然我当然看到更糟糕的网页，但这并不是$>
有资格获得评级高于评分。
列表中的第二个未能在两点上进行客观测试，
" ;不要使用弃用的标记并且清楚地标识每个
链接的目标。
它也失败了HTML验证（再次取消了AAA的资格
WAI）;从表面上来看，CSS显示了正确的语法，但是
警告包括同色背景上的彩色文字，
这是一个WAI失败。
查看替代文本，他们的主观分析失败，例如
< img src =" images / cfc1.gif" ALT ="隔板"宽度= QUOT; 50％"高度=" 1">
< br>
好的，继续下一个。这也无法使用已弃用的
功能。它的alt文本的选择使其成为主要标题（其中，* b $ b令人惊讶地，* *被*标记为< h1rather而不是通常< div
class =" ;这些天我们经常看到的#headerheading"> -type废话。
奇怪的是：
HGM2006芬兰国旗
直接来自更奇怪的路线：
HUGO Logo赫尔辛基港
紧随其后的相当重复：
页面由我们**维护*************@hgu.mrc.ac.uk
有效的XHTML 1.0！辅助功能Spacer有效的CSS！辅助功能垫片
级别三A一致性图标，W3C-WAI网页内容辅助功能
指南1.0
和
住宿信息住宿
这位网络工作人员是否可以在仅文本情况下看到他们误入歧途的结果？ Bleagh。
除此之外，他们的soi-disant XHTML / 1.0包含：
< style type =" text / css">
<！ -
@import url（/Styles/hgm2006.css）;
- >
< / style>
注释标记表示正常行为的XHTML客户端代理
应该忽略样式表。什么是在这个非常好的
开始？ -
<！ -
<？xml version =" 1.0" encoding =" iso-8859-1"？>
- >
<！DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional // EN"
" http://www.w3.org/TR/ xhtml1 / DTD / xhtml1-transitional.dtd ">
奇怪。
请注意，W3C自己做作了制作这个奇怪的链接
文字：
W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative（WAI）logo
你真的找到了其中一个那些列出我想成为AAA页面的那些确实实际通过了吗？我还没有。
相当多的我自己的页面都通过了AAA的客观测试
可访问性，但我没有吹嘘它。我的一些页面失败
几个客观测试，但它们是WAI 1.0
ckeckpoint说直到用户代理......的情况，我认为那些检查站
现在造成的麻烦超过了它们的价值，所以我故意将
留下一些。
ttfn
That''s only ones which *claim* conformance.
And the first one on the list that I got from google, failed at least
one of the objective tests (don''t use deprecated markup), with several
warnings.
Also the W3C HTML validator ruled it invalid, and the CSS checker
ruled its HTML so bad that it refused to check the CSS until the HTML
was fixed.
That itself disqualifies a page for anything more than A-level WAI,
IIRC.
(In this case I used the checker URLs which are built into the
Pederick toolbar - no offence to Nick Kew, who has written some
excellent software for this - I was just too lazy.)
As for my subjective tests, I refuse to believe that an alt text
which says:
Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0
has really understood the purpose of the alt text. The substantive
information carried by that icon was (even though it wasn''t quite
true) was "Conforms to Triple-A W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0", and that would be my nearest proposal for what the
alt text should have been. Rubbing it in to a blind reader that this
is really an image, which they can''t see, is totally unnecessary and
discourteous.
And font sizes were specified in px units, and included Verdana.
So, although I certainly have seen much worse web pages, this doesn''t
qualify for rating "above the cut".
The second one on the list failed objective tests on two points,
"don''t use deprecated markup" and "clearly identify the target of each
link".
It also failed HTML validation (again disqualifying itself for AAA
WAI); the CSS, on the face of it, showed correct syntax, but the
warnings included cases of coloured text on same-coloured background,
which is a WAI failure.
Looking at the alt texts, they fail my subjective analysis, e.g
<img src="images/cfc1.gif" alt="separator" width="50%" height="1">
<br>
OK, on to the next one. This also fails for using deprecated
features. And its choice of alt texts makes its main heading (which,
amazingly, really *is* marked up as <h1rather than the usual <div
class="mainheading">-type nonsense which we so often see these days)
bizarrely read:
HGM2006 Finnish Flag
coming directly after the even more bizarre line:
HUGO Logo Helsinki Harbour
followed soon after by the rather repetitive:
Page maintained by we***************@hgu.mrc.ac.uk
Valid XHTML 1.0! Accessibility Spacer Valid CSS! Accessibility Spacer
Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0
and
Accommodation Info Accommodation
Can this webperson ever have seen the results of their misguided
effort in a text-only situation? Bleagh.
Over and above that, their soi-disant XHTML/1.0 contains this:
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@import url(/Styles/hgm2006.css);
-->
</style>
The comment markers mean that a properly-behaved XHTML client agent
should ignore the stylesheet. And what''s with this at the very
beginning? -
<!--
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
-->
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd ">
Strange.
Mind you, the W3C themselves contrived to produce this bizarre link
text:
W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo
Did you actually find one of those listed I-wanna-be-AAA pages which
did actually pass? I haven''t yet.
Quite a number of my own pages pass the objective tests for AAA
accessibility, but I don''t brag about it. Some of my pages fail
several objective tests, but they are situations where the WAI 1.0
ckeckpoint said "until user agents...", and I reckon those checkpoints
are now causing more trouble than they are worth, so I deliberately
leave some of them out.
ttfn
这些天对网页设计师的无知令人震惊。我还能说什么？b $ b？我写信给那些声称符合AAA级标准的设计师，
说明他们的错误和缺陷......我还没有收到回复。
这是否意味着我是对的？
PS查看 http://w3csites.com 上的一些声明 - 很多
他们是虚假的imo。
Alan J. Flavell写道：
The ignorance of webdesigners these days is astounding. What more can I
say? I''ve written to the designers who claim triple-A conformance,
stating their errors and flaws... I''ve yet to receive a response.
Does that mean I''m right?
P.S. check out some of the claims on http://w3csites.com - a lot of
them are false imo.
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
2006年7月29日星期六， Andy Mabbett写道：
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Google发现：
结果1 - 20约34,000链接到
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance
这只是*声称*一致性的那些。
我从谷歌获得的第一个列表，在至少
其中一个客观测试（不要使用弃用的标记），有几个
警告。
另外W3C HTML验证器判定它无效，并且CSS检查器
裁定其HTML非常糟糕以至于它拒绝检查CSS直到HTML
是固定的。
这本身取消了A-level WAI以外的任何页面的资格，
IIRC。
（在这种情况下，我使用了内置于
Pederick工具栏中的检查器URL - 对于已经写了一些
优秀软件的Nick Kew没有任何冒犯对于这个 - 我只是太懒了。）
至于我的主观测试，我拒绝相信替代文字
其中说：
Level-A一致性图标，W3C-WAI Web内容可访问性
指南1.0
真正理解了替代文字。该图标带有的实质性信息是（即使它不是真的很好），但是符合三A-W3C-WAI Web内容可访问性 br />
指南1.0"，这将是我最接近
替代文本的提议。把它交给一个盲人读者，这个
实际上是一张他们看不到的图像，完全没必要，而且b $ b b b b .......
/>
字体大小以px为单位指定，包括Verdana。
所以，虽然我当然看到更糟糕的网页，但这并不是$>
有资格获得评级高于评分。
列表中的第二个未能在两点上进行客观测试，
" ;不要使用弃用的标记并且清楚地标识每个
链接的目标。
它也失败了HTML验证（再次取消了AAA的资格
WAI）;从表面上来看，CSS显示了正确的语法，但是
警告包括同色背景上的彩色文字，
这是一个WAI失败。
查看替代文本，他们的主观分析失败，例如
< img src =" images / cfc1.gif" ALT ="隔板"宽度= QUOT; 50％"高度=" 1">
< br>
好的，继续下一个。这也无法使用已弃用的
功能。它的alt文本的选择使其成为主要标题（其中，* b $ b令人惊讶地，* *被*标记为< h1rather而不是通常< div
class =" ;这些天我们经常看到的#headerheading"> -type废话。
奇怪的是：
HGM2006芬兰国旗
直接来自更奇怪的路线：
HUGO Logo赫尔辛基港
紧随其后的相当重复：
页面由我们**维护*************@hgu.mrc.ac.uk
有效的XHTML 1.0！辅助功能Spacer有效的CSS！辅助功能垫片
级别三A一致性图标，W3C-WAI网页内容辅助功能
指南1.0
和
住宿信息住宿
这位网络工作人员是否可以在仅文本情况下看到他们误入歧途的结果？ Bleagh。
除此之外，他们的soi-disant XHTML / 1.0包含：
< style type =" text / css">
<！ -
@import url（/Styles/hgm2006.css）;
- >
< / style>
注释标记表示正常行为的XHTML客户端代理
应该忽略样式表。什么是在这个非常好的
开始？ -
<！ -
<？xml version =" 1.0" encoding =" iso-8859-1"？>
- >
<！DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC" - // W3C // DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional // EN"
" http://www.w3.org/TR/ xhtml1 / DTD / xhtml1-transitional.dtd ">
奇怪。
请注意，W3C自己做作了制作这个奇怪的链接
text：
W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative（WAI）logo
你有没有实际上找到其中一个列出我想成为AAA的页面，其中
确实通过了吗？我还没有。
相当多的我自己的页面都通过了AAA
辅助功能的客观测试，但我不敢吹嘘它。我的一些页面失败
几个客观测试，但它们是WAI 1.0
ckeckpoint说直到用户代理......的情况，我认为那些检查站
现在造成的损失超过了它们的价值，所以我故意将
留下一些。
ttfn
That''s only ones which *claim* conformance.
And the first one on the list that I got from google, failed at least
one of the objective tests (don''t use deprecated markup), with several
warnings.
Also the W3C HTML validator ruled it invalid, and the CSS checker
ruled its HTML so bad that it refused to check the CSS until the HTML
was fixed.
That itself disqualifies a page for anything more than A-level WAI,
IIRC.
(In this case I used the checker URLs which are built into the
Pederick toolbar - no offence to Nick Kew, who has written some
excellent software for this - I was just too lazy.)
As for my subjective tests, I refuse to believe that an alt text
which says:
Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0
has really understood the purpose of the alt text. The substantive
information carried by that icon was (even though it wasn''t quite
true) was "Conforms to Triple-A W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0", and that would be my nearest proposal for what the
alt text should have been. Rubbing it in to a blind reader that this
is really an image, which they can''t see, is totally unnecessary and
discourteous.
And font sizes were specified in px units, and included Verdana.
So, although I certainly have seen much worse web pages, this doesn''t
qualify for rating "above the cut".
The second one on the list failed objective tests on two points,
"don''t use deprecated markup" and "clearly identify the target of each
link".
It also failed HTML validation (again disqualifying itself for AAA
WAI); the CSS, on the face of it, showed correct syntax, but the
warnings included cases of coloured text on same-coloured background,
which is a WAI failure.
Looking at the alt texts, they fail my subjective analysis, e.g
<img src="images/cfc1.gif" alt="separator" width="50%" height="1">
<br>
OK, on to the next one. This also fails for using deprecated
features. And its choice of alt texts makes its main heading (which,
amazingly, really *is* marked up as <h1rather than the usual <div
class="mainheading">-type nonsense which we so often see these days)
bizarrely read:
HGM2006 Finnish Flag
coming directly after the even more bizarre line:
HUGO Logo Helsinki Harbour
followed soon after by the rather repetitive:
Page maintained by we***************@hgu.mrc.ac.uk
Valid XHTML 1.0! Accessibility Spacer Valid CSS! Accessibility Spacer
Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0
and
Accommodation Info Accommodation
Can this webperson ever have seen the results of their misguided
effort in a text-only situation? Bleagh.
Over and above that, their soi-disant XHTML/1.0 contains this:
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@import url(/Styles/hgm2006.css);
-->
</style>
The comment markers mean that a properly-behaved XHTML client agent
should ignore the stylesheet. And what''s with this at the very
beginning? -
<!--
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
-->
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd ">
Strange.
Mind you, the W3C themselves contrived to produce this bizarre link
text:
W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo
Did you actually find one of those listed I-wanna-be-AAA pages which
did actually pass? I haven''t yet.
Quite a number of my own pages pass the objective tests for AAA
accessibility, but I don''t brag about it. Some of my pages fail
several objective tests, but they are situations where the WAI 1.0
ckeckpoint said "until user agents...", and I reckon those checkpoints
are now causing more trouble than they are worth, so I deliberately
leave some of them out.
ttfn
在消息< Pi *************************** ****@ppepc87.ph.gla。 ac.uk>，
Alan J. Flavell< fl ***** @ physics.gla.ac.ukwrites
In message <Pi*******************************@ppepc87.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.ukwrites
> ; 2006年7月29日星期六，Andy Mabbett写道：
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Google发现：
结果1 - 20，大约34,000个链接到
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-一致性
这只是*声称*一致性的。
That''s only ones which *claim* conformance.
相当。因此，...... *似乎*如此。
也许是AAA一致性。 logo是新的黑色^ W bogosity警告？
-
Andy Mabbett
说不！强制性身份证：< http://www.no2id.net/>
免费我们的数据：< http：//www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Quite. Hence "... *seem to* think so".
Maybe a "AAA conformance" logo is the new black^W bogosity warning?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
这篇关于AAA AAA合规性？ 34,000个网站似乎都这么认为。的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
