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

RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives

From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:49:53 -0000
To: "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003801c5e220$90aaf140$0200a8c0@PaulLaptop>

I was just about to respond with a similar note, thanks Mauizio. And
this is after reading Bruce's email too.

- Validity does not equal accessibility. Validity is a best practise.
- An accessible website can still contain invalid code
- If a website passes every checkpoint but contains invalid code, it's
impossible to say that some assistive technologies will not work
properly, why? Because every checkpoint wouldn't have passed.

------

      If a page isn't rendered, than it wouldn't pass any guideline...
you
      don't need a specific validation guideline: the system simply
doesn't
      work at all! And, according to principle 1, the content is NOT
      perceivable: failed! It's so simple. (1)
      
      I think Paul stated a main concept: *if a validation error is
important
      for accessibility, it should already be covered by another
guideline!*
      
      - i.e., if a table validation error messes up the readability of
the
      data, it violates principle 3 and also guideline 1.3. That's all.
      
      Validation is just a different topic from accessibility, sometimes
      related and sometimes not (and related doesn't mean "it's the
same"!).
      We need to address only validation problems that cause problems to
      accessibility: and obviously we should do this by covering them
with all
      the other guidelines.

      And if, after that, we still have validation problem that aren't
covered
      by other guidelines, that should mean that that problem isn't
relevant
      for accessibility! This is true if the whole set of guidelines is
      appropriately done, as we all want!
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 15:49:51 GMT

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