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

RE: Validity

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:31:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D497D@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Paul Walsh" <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
> Can you please provide a real example of an assistive technology 
> doesn't work as a result of invalid code, where all WAI guidelines pass? 

I do not believe that the above is controversial as examples are numerous.  Am I wrong about that Matt? 

The most intractable problem is with nested tables.  Things get better with each release, but I must have heard Jaws announce “not in a table” (when cursor clearly is in a cell) literally thousands of times.  I am a little burned out by this.  Repairing the html fragment resolves the issue about three-fourths of the time.

We wave our hands and pretend this is a violation of WCAG1 5.1 or 5.2 (actually 508 1194.22 g or h) but we know that is stretching the truth.

I will repeat my often-made but never satisfied plea:  Please name three mainstream site that nominally pay attention to validity -- but not accessibility -- that have non-trivial WCAG1 P1 violations.  Matt (and others) have offered compelling sounding theories why this is so, but no evidence, and nothing that satisfactorily explains the improbably high level of one-way correlation.
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 15:31:13 GMT

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