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

Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:16:13 +0200
To: <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200506210713171.SM03736@Inbox>

Sorry Becky but you intend that if DHTML works for IE and mozilla it is accessible? And what about for other OS and other Browser? And for PDA? You could said: "pda are not our target", but i reply: "a friend of mine (a blind guy) uses pocketpc  with Jaws...

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com"<Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
    Inviato: 21/06/05 12.55.16
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions   from  last 2 days)
    
    This thread refers to "valid" code and I'm not sure everyone has the same 
    definition.  In my mind valid HTML/XHTML code conforms to a DTD or schema 
    - there are no errors when I test with a validity checker such as that 
    provided by the W3C.  Well formed code will parse correctly but may not be 
    valid.  It may have attributes specified for certain elements that are not 
    part of the DTD.  The Level 1 SC addresses well-formed code but not 
    necessarily valid code.  It is true that well formed code does not 
    guarantee accessibility but it does help the assistive technologies to 
    interpret the code. Yes, the user agents do a pretty good job of ignoring 
    some set of coding errors and visually displaying the content but I 
    believe the job is more difficult for assistive technologies. Thus, I can 
    live with a requirement at level 1 that my code is well-formed - that is 
    good coding practice and can help accessibility.   I can not live with a 
    requirement for completely VALID code at level 1.
    
    For example, The DHTML roadmap extensions that I and others are working on 
    are meant to help accessibility. We are taking the paradigm of the client 
    to the web by adding full keyboard support and the use of arrow keys to 
    navigate rather than relying only on the tab key.   See 
    http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/ for more details on the Firefox 
    solutions, we are working on IE compatible solutions.  Because the code 
    relies on user agent extensions to allow the tabindex attribute on any 
    element (and thus allow focus to that element), this code will not 
    validate.  In the current HTML and XHTML DTDs, the tabindex attribute is 
    specified only for the anchor and input elements.  If the requirement for 
    valid code that conforms to a DTD is required at Level 1, I would not be 
    able to use the DHTML roadmap to create a more accessible page!  We are 
    working within the W3C to get this new technology fully supported in the 
    specifications. But, that takes time and until that happens I could not 
    conform to WCAG 2.0 if the validity requirement was at Level 1.   WCAG 2.0 
    should not restrict projects that are working to improve accessibility by 
    including Level 1 requirements that do not always guarantee accessibility. 
     
    
    (Since I know some of you will object to the DHTML roadmap technologies I 
    want to acknowledge that, Yes, the DHTML roadmap work does require 
    JavaScript as part of the baseline technologies.  It may not be 
    appropriate for all web sites but is certainly applicable in web 
    applications where the audience and technologies in use are known). 
    
    
    Becky Gibson
    Web Accessibility Architect
                                                           
    IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
    5 Technology Park Drive
    Westford, MA 01886
    Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
    Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 11:16:39 UTC

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