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

Re: Validity

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:23:30 +0000
Message-ID: <e2a28a920511040623h22d444cbo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Cc: WCAG WG mailing list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

On 04/11/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote:
> Gez Lemon wrote:
> >1: Validity isn't essential for accessibility
>
> And this is the most important fact.

It would be the most important fact if validity never impacted
accessibility. You're concluding that this statement never impacts
accessibility, which is quite obviously incorrect. It is a fact that
just walking in the road won't necessarily get you run over by a car,
but that does not mean that it is a good idea to walk in the road.

> It' simple. Real case. You take an assistive technology and an invalid
> page, and test. Most of times, you find that a number of invalidity
> issues won't result in assistive technologies impossibility of  copying
> with content, and understand that in those cases validity isn't
> essential. That's really all: observe reality.

In that case, why are we bothering with guidelines at all? Wouldn't it
just be simpler to say, "Do what you like, and if it causes anyone a
problem, change it." One principle, and we'll easily reach our
deadline of publishing this week.

If we want to move this issue on so that we reach our publishing
deadline, it would be more useful to accurately state the pros and
cons of having validity in the guidelines, and try and come to a
consensus that we may not all like, but could live with.

Best regards,

Gez

--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 14:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT