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

RE: Balancing the myth-busting.

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:28:13 +0200
To: "'Tina Holmboe'" <tina@greytower.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005f01c59d18$7db6b8f0$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tina Holmboe
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:48 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Balancing the myth-busting.

  I've argued the need for valid code and how it is important for
  accessibility for the last ten years. I'm afraid people still don't
  agree with me, or you, Gez.

Roberto Scano:
I repeat that I don't see group consensus about validity. Is possible to
make a ballot for this? With a simple question like:
Did you consider validity as important for accessibility of web contents?
What level of accessibility should code validity be ?
[and eventually a note field]

We are waiting for this also in AU WG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JulSep/0053.html

Otherwise we go ahead with this for months (and I continue to say in every
situation that invalid code could cause inaccessibility to people that use
web contents - but someone said that WAI is only for people with
disabilities (like the guideline 2 of old WCAG 1.0, where using black text
with black background will guarantee a level AA of accessibility...): think
that we will decide the future of web contents: we are not joking or
defending companies policies/products (i hope).
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 19:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT