W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days

From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:06:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A9764180516B5AB@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <mcmay@w3.org>, <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

We currently have SC for that issue.  1.4 L2 SC1,2

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:43 PM
To: mcmay@w3.org; joeclark@joeclark.org
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days


if u declare a dtd and not respect it, it's a dtd violation: br is an
example and if people said: "why it's wrong" means that they don't know
what they are doing.
As Joe said, we are in application/xhtml+xml era, and for
application/xml markup conformance is required for correct
representation. Web (html) is the only language that authorize
representation of non-conformed content (except of mosaic).
Moving to level 2 means make possibily inaccessible pages for all.
I hope we don't make the same error of wcag 1.0 where colour contrast
for text was level 3 and for images level 2: a well conformed page that
respect all level 1 and 2 checkpoint with all text and background of the
same text colour (eg. Black) is formally wcag 1.0 AA but inaccessible to
the largest audience (people without disability/AT)

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Matt May"<mcmay@w3.org>
 Yep. And it's the right call to leave it out at P1. If it's possible to

    create accessible content without forcing a validation process at
the 
    same time, that's a reasonable approach, if it gets more people to
focus 
    on making what they have more accessible.
    
    > Do you even understand what you're doing? If you maintain invalid 
    > markup as a permitted option, CMSs will never be upgraded to
produce 
    > valid code. You've given them an escape clause.
    
    
    Accessibility is not the primary driver for valid output. Most
companies 
    are moving to standards-based output because their consumers are
asking 
    for it to increase browser interoperability and lower maintenance
costs 
    and development time. They can just as effectively make inaccessible

    content from a tool that produces valid output, despite all claims
to 
    the contrary.
    
    > Who in the room in Brussels is capable of using a manual editor-- 
    > complete with macros and presets-- to produce valid code in the
first 
    > place? Do you even know how to do what you're saying is too hard
to 
    > require? Probably not, right?
    
    
    I'm not in Brussels, but I do know all that stuff, and I've
evaluated 
    enough authoring tools in my official capacity to know that a lot of

    them still don't have a grip on validity. And when considering older

    systems that are still in use, which we have to do, many may well be

    impossible to fix. They'd spend more time fixing validation errors
(many 
    of which wouldn't matter at all to ATs) than they would actually 
    thinking about how to make their content more accessible.
    
    Yes, sites should be valid without exception. I pounded my fist on
the 
    podium at a W3C Advisory Committee meeting to drive that point home
to 
    authoring tool vendors. But validity is not a sine qua non for 
    accessibility. And it's the wrong thing to lie down in the road
over.
    
    If validity is level 1, somebody is going to ask us why adding a
slash 
    to the <br> elements in their XHTML document is going to make them 
    accessible, and we're going to have to come up with an answer to
that. 
    Invalid code is highly correlated with inaccessible HTML, but to say
all 
    invalid HTML is de facto inaccessible is a hasty generalization
fallacy. 
    They're both symptoms of poor coding practices -- but we're
concerned 
    with content, and lots of it. While I think it's important to have
valid 
    code, I also believe the lowest level of WCAG 2 is the wrong place
to 
    enforce it. Level 2 is more appropriate, and reflects the amount of
work 
    involved in making many sites valid.
    
    -
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per
recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 12:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC