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

Re: Validity

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:39:47 +0100
Message-ID: <436B72B3.8040501@usabile.it>
To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, gez.lemon@gmail.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:

>Maurizio:
>    Testing.
>    It' simple. Real case. You take an assistive technology and an invalid 
>    page, and test. 
>
>Roberto:
>Ah wonderful! And what AT? With which configuration? And, at least, why wcag should lose time for test all AT?
>Follow this idea, w3c will issue 1-2 spec. per year.
>  
>

Maurizio:
Wcag 2.0 already lost many years. It would be nice if someone would care 
to compare guidelines with real technologies. If someone think about how 
important is a guideline or a checkpoint for actual disable problems. 
Test and proof. I thought this would be a due for wcag-wg, but maybe I'm 
wrong. Maybe you see wg as a guidelines emanator, and the applicability, 
validlity, reliability, efficacy of guidelines is other's problem.


Roberto:

>My question (never replyed) is always: why no Valid code? How elements can be programmatically determinated if an UA cannot parse correctly page code?
>  
>

Maurizio:
Not again... I wrote so many mail with arguments you ignored and 
continue to ignore... But I'm a kind person and repeat. :)

Basics: I'm not against valid code. It's useful. I just can't see it 
essential to accessibility. So, for many reason I think it's a bad idea 
to put in Priority 1 (or use it as legal requirement). Here's the reasons.

The conceptual argument:
1. We can't say that validation is per se an accessibility problem. Some 
times it is, some time it isn't. Difficult to distinguish? Yes, so we 
should be conservative, and not put it the whole concept of "validaton" 
(that contain many different issues) at priority 1. Especially because 
we have priority 2 and 3 for this grey cases...
2. If we put this as priority 1, we say something like "if your page is 
invalid it's inaccessible", that is simply untrue.
3. Validation isn't an accessibility problem: it has some relations with 
accessibilty, but wcag is about accessibility and disabled ones 
experienxe, not about code standards. For code standards we have the 
(x)html recomandations. We are confusing two different plans, here.

The real world argument:
3. Actual AT has always been able to copy with some kind of invalidation 
problem
4. I know a lot of disabled people that can access to invalid pages. 
This is a common experience. So I think that after all valid is better, 
but it isn't *preliminary* for accessibility of disabled people. So I 
don't say it isn't important, at a certain level. But if it isn't 
preliminary, it isn't priority 1. Or what is priority 1 supposed to be?

The law and order argument:
5. Wcag has been indicated as the basis for many national law. Not 
always law makers can understand what is really important and what is 
complementary. L1 is for basic issues, and validation isn't basic. So 
please don't confound them making mistakes by ourselves.
6. People can do valid pages, but site mantainer need tools to mantain 
code validation. This tools at the moment are largerly imperfect. To 
have a law that force validation should pose problem that site mantainer 
can't solve in a practicable way.
7. Even the best CMS o Framework may have bug, and page can be 
occasionally invalid. Even when user put comments they can make a page 
invalid. Well, this may happen: I think this shouldn't be a reason to 
have legal problem.


Most of all, I can't understand why so many of you think validation is 
that important. Clarity of language is far more important.

Bye

M

Disclaimer: I have no personal interests in the topic, 'cause I'm not a 
producer of tools related to validation or html pages, and I'm not 
risking of being sued by national law. I'm just a consultant and a teacher.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 14:27:35 GMT

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