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 14:46:13 +0000
Message-ID: <e2a28a920511040646y27f7ca36k@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Cc: WCAG WG mailing list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

HI Andrew,

On 04/11/05, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com> wrote:
> The assumption here is the the assistive technologies actually use the
> code.

That wasn't my assumption, although I will admit I had assumed that
our guidelines weren't based on Microsoft's accessibility
architecture. There is no way to assume a useful DOM if the markup
isn't valid.

> Not all validation errors are of the same level of importance to
> accessibility.  We have specific guidelines and techniques for important
> errors, but most validation errors are insignificant.  I've seen pages
> with hundreds of accessibility issues that actual users find quite
> accessible and useable.

Are you sure the guidelines capture every validity error that might
result in an accessibility barrier? How can we be sure we have all
bases covered? Is it not simpler to merely require validity?

More to the point, what exactly is the problem with validity? As so
many people feel quite passionately that validity will kill the
guidelines, although there's no evidence of this as it's in WCAG 1.0,
I feel I'm missing some fundamental point. Thrashing out which
validity errors cause accessibility barriers and those that don't
isn't getting us very far, and is probably the reason this guideline
is nowhere near ready.

Best regards,


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 14:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC