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

RE: Validity

From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:28:54 -0000
To: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c5e226$03dae940$0200a8c0@PaulLaptop>
*    Validity does not equal accessibility.
> An accessible website can still contain invalid code


These comes up every time we try to discuss why validity should be P1,
and it is a huge distraction.

> 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.

I just gave you an example (nested data tables) where all WCAG1 P1
checkpoints pass, but some assistive technologies (Jaws screen reader)
don't work properly.  What more do you want?
[Paul] If nobody is contesting the above, and it's possible to have an
accessible site containing invalid code, how can you justify mandating
code validity in an 'accessibility' initiative? If there are specific
issues that cause specific errors, create specific guidelines to address
them and stop trying to carpet bomb them with validity - that is just to
difficult and costly for the vast majority of large portals to address.
Otherwise you will alienate a large population where 'valid' code is
just not possible, yet accessibility is.

(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 16:28:59 UTC

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