 |
 |
Ken, I think you'll find that most Blacklight instances have fairly low error rates, though are not error free. At Stanford, we are blessed to have a strong accessibility expert (not in the libraries), and we've been channeling his feedback [1] to continue to improve the accessibility of SearchWorks [2] for the last couple of years. Others in the Blacklight community share this interest [3, 4], and vanilla VuFind seems to have similary low (but not perfect) error rate. Given the earlier remark about Koha, it appears to me that this is a case where a rising tide raises all ships, and the impact of a few good accessibility people on a single OSS project is leveraged across a whole community. - Tom [1] http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/soap [2] http://searchworks.stanford.edu [3] http://search.lib.virginia.edu/ [4] https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/ On Jun 20, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Ken Irwin wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm curious: does ANYONE have an OPAC that passes an HTML validator test? > > I've know mine doesn't, and none of the ones I spot-checked do either. (TPD: OhioLINK gets a prize for coming way closer than anyone, by at least an order of magnitude and sometimes several!) > > Do catalogs even validate out-of-the-box? (I've never set up an OPAC before, I have no idea what "out-of-the-box" might actually look like.) > > I'm presently writing an article about working up a mobile OPAC and am a little embarrassed to be talking about validation despite the fact that my own catalog doesn't validate. I'm glad to see (?) I'm not alone in this, but... > > What do we think about this? > > Ken