On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:25:49AM +0100, Jutta Wrage wrote: > >Hi! Hi Jutta! >Maybe, it is not right, asking here as I am not a DD at all, but I >wonder about the web presentation of candidates. > >1. One of the candidates uses pictures to illustrate his platform, >but does not give an alternative description for lynx users and blind >people - accident? Pass, not me. >2. One of the candidates uses font tag (which is not valid HTML >strict) and makes text not visible in graphical browsers due to the >not noticible difference to the background. The hidden text is shown >in lynx. - accident? Ditto, not me. >In all other plattforms there are only minor validation problems that >can be corrected easily without making a noticible difference. But as >far as I can see, none of the pages really was valid HTML strict and >none (or nearly none) uses semantic tags only, which would be better >for people who can "see" only the text content. My own platform at http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/platforms/93sam validates as "Valid HTML 4.01 Strict", using the w3c validator. My own pages at http://www.einval.com/~steve/ are targeted at either that or HTML 4.01 Transitional, and as far as I'm aware most (if not all) of them validate correctly too. I don't have as much time to spend on my web pages as I'd like, which is why I've not yet updated to an XHTML DTD. It's on my TODO list, but there are a lot of things above it yet... :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature