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

RE: Validity

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:03:46 +0100
To: <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511040957328.SM00784@Inbox>

I don't talk about level 1, but about the possibility to violate specification.
If wcag wg wanna keep at level 2 is ok, but not "you can pass level 1 also if is not valid code, simply declarinėg that u do this for accessibility. 

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Yvette Hoitink"<y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
    Inviato: 04/11/05 15.39.42
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Validity
    Roberto Scano wrote:
    > I wanna said only that authorize violation of other w3c spec. 
    > will difficulty have wcag 2.0 that pass in AC Representative vote.
    I have heard this argument before (the fact that WCAG cannot be seen to
    allow breaking other W3C specifications) and respectfully, I disagree.
    Just because we don't require something at level 1 doesn't mean the working
    group thinks it isn't important for reasons other than accessibility. It
    just means the working group doesn't think it's important enough *for
    accessibility* at level 1. 
    An analogy: Spelling errors can cause problems for people with cognitive
    disabilities or people using screenreaders. The fact that we have no success
    criteria about not making spelling errors does not mean we think it's ok to
    make spelling errors. It just means we don't find it important enough for
    accessibility to put it in our guidelines. 
    Should we have a success criteria about not making spelling errors? That's
    an interesting discussion which I think is worth having, focusing on the
    accessibility problems of spelling errors. But we shouldn't require it just
    because spelling rules exist and people shouldn't make mistakes. 
    Similarly, I don't think we should require validity at level 1 just to
    require following a specification. If we do want to require validity at
    level 1, it should be because invalid code is an important barrier to
    accessibility. So I would like to propose to focus the discussion about
    requiring validity on the accessibility problems with invalid code instead
    of whether we should allow violating specifications.
    Yvette Hoitink
    Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
    E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
    WWW: http://www.heritas.nl 

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:00:53 UTC

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