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

Re: Balancing the myth-busting.

From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:52:55 -0700
To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <43cc154369a8.4369a843cc15@adobe.com>

> Some accessibility validators do not check validity, even though
> validity is a priority 2 level requirement for WCAG 1.0. At the
> moment, validity is considered part of accessibility, and as the
> markup validator is an automated checker, to my mind, it belongs in
> the results. To me, it's more like comparing a big apple with a 
> apple rather than apples and oranges. I appreciate people's mileage
> will vary on this issue, in which case they can discard validity if
> it's not important to them.

Gez, I feel like we are still talking past one another on this point, 
which is not whether accessibility validators are checking validity 
properly or completely, or whether validity is important to 
accessibility. A tool that only purports to check validity, even if it 
does so perfectly to your expectations, is still not an accessibility 
checker. I would always expect it to pass some sites that still have 
accessibility problems. Including it in a list of accessibility 
checkers seems inappropriate. Maybe it needs an asterisk. 

By the way, this really is a minor point, and I think your test case 
is a great piece of work for making concrete many of the issues that 
we wrestle with in more general terms.

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:53:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:55 UTC