iamlost - 12:11 am on Jun 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

When formulating a site the prominence of each basic ingredient needs to be matched to the requirements of the client.

The problem with 'full' is that it is a subjective term. Even when referencing 'standards' and 'best practices':
* xHTML or HTML?
* transitional or strict DocType?
* Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: A or AA or AAA?
* WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0 or PAS 78?

Then there may be applicable legal requirements:
* Section 508 (USA) or DDA 1995/Code of Practice: Rights of Access (UK) or [insert country and regulation]?

I believe that initial site considerations must incorporate: accessibility, usability, site architecture, SEO/M, etc. I like to start with each at 'maximum' (my subjective) and only lessen where requirements or conflicts necessitate. It takes all the ingredients, in good proportion, well combined, to bake a proper site.

Why so many put up inaccessible sites?
Because they don't know any better because they really don't understand what they are doing; because you can only have any two of fast, cheap, or good; because CMS's suck at standards...I think you pushed a button... :-)

Doing it 'right' can take some getting used to and may add development time (and cost) but the result can add significant site value plus, of course, set you apart from the mass of cookie cutter web developers.