W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:45:51 +0300
Cc: "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8D441B7C-12B3-4DD7-91EB-9FF1309FF1F5@iki.fi>
To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>

On May 17, 2008, at 16:07, Gez Lemon wrote:
> I do understand what you are trying to get at, it's just that it
> doesn't make sense to establish a policy that results in a structure
> that is known to be inaccessible to some people. I think it's more
> important that the resulting structure is perceivable to its intended
> audience than exonerating poor authoring tools.

Part of what I hold as the mission of Validator.nu is to make a  
validator that doesn't have the kind of flaws that previous validators  
are known to have. Inducing software developers to make accessibility  
fail harder when accessibility fails is something that I consider to  
be a flaw in previous validator design.

So what I'm trying to do is to make Validator.nu not to cause  
accessibility to fail even more when the situation is that it *is  
going to* fail. I feel that the *added* failure would be my fault.  
Neither exonerating nor avoiding exonerating people are part of my  
goals. That accessibility is going to fail in some cases is, however,  
part of my working assumptions.

You seem to be saying that it is OK to make accessibility fail even  
more when it fails, because the cases where it fails at all are bad.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 13:46:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC