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 16:22:47 +0100
Message-ID: <436B7CC7.6010608@usabile.it>
To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, WCAG WG mailing list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gez Lemon wrote:

>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. 

In fact it's not what I'm concluding, as I already wrote.

We are running in circle without seeing the exit.
Let's repeat, trying to see the exit.

Validity isn't essential for accessibility. What does it means? It 
means, as I wrote, that sometimes some problems caused by invalid pages 
affects accessibility and sometimes they don't. It's so simple that we 
all could agree without misunderstanding each other. Great.

 From this, my conclusion is that *in P1 we should put issues that 
always affect accessibility*. And this is obviously not the case of 

But from this you conclude that *in P1 we should put issues that 
sometimes affect accessibility*. You mean this, right?

But if you think this, and this is the only argument I see, and the one 
that make the difference from our visions, the problem is not 
validation, but what is P1 supposed to be!!

I think of P1 as the place where we list issues that, if not followed, 
will always lead to accessibility hard problem.
In this case, we can't put validation in P1, because this is not the case.
If you mean to put in P1 any issues that could affect accessibility, or 
not, then can you explain what is P2 and P3 for?

The question I put some months ago and that none answered (maybe because 
it's decisive?) is:

- what do we mean exactly for priority 1?

Only this can give us criterium to decide what is to put here or there. 
In fact, I agree (and even Andrew Kirkpatrick agree, as you can read) 
that validation is good and better. The problem is "how much validation 
is good and better when talking about accessibility in our guidelines"? 
It's not a 0/1 question. I hope this is clearer than before.

Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:10:34 UTC

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