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

RE: Should validity be P1 or P2?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:18:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4714@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "Matt May" <mcmay@w3.org>
Cc: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

>> You've completely missed the other half of the problem, which is that we
>> can find many examples of valid pages that are plenty inaccessible.

>  That is an unsupported claim. Nobody has provided even the standard three 
>  *real-world* examples that I repeatedly call for and never get.

Thanks Joe, I wanted to bring that up again.  I recently cited the link back five years ago where I asked *one* non-trivial reference, which I never got.  Please Matt?  Anyone else?  You are asserting that Unicorns exist merely because they are theoretically possible.  Should you not be obligated to point a few out when asked politely?

May also wrote:

> We specify the presence of _equivalent_ alt text. 

Actually, WCAG specifies "text equivalents" and one *could* reasonably argue that the filename provides that and that a missing ALT attribute is the textual equivalent of a shim gif.

> That is, the next sentence in your analogy isn't: "So 
> let's drop it as a requirement."

No, the next (implied) sentence in *both* assertions is:  "So let's make this a P2 checkpoint instead of P1."

> I'm strongly against us specifying a requirement we don't know how to defend.

This is a reasonable concern, so let us direct our efforts on how to defend validity, and not give up on it.  Validity is clearly very important to accessibility.
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 17:18:38 UTC

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