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 17:11:49 -0000
To: "'Roberto Castaldo'" <r.castaldo@iol.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004c01c5e22c$02421210$0200a8c0@PaulLaptop>

Firstly, why do you amongst others, feel that the only testable
guidelines are those that are done using tools? 

We certify sites every week and if we were to failed them as a result of
invalid code, the vast majority of them would fail - even though they
meet all Double-A and two checkpoints in Treble-AAA. I hope you're not
trying to tell me that these sites should fail the basic level of
accessibility just because they contain invalid code? If you are, then
you don't live in the real world. I will reiterate, introducing validity
to the lowest level of conformance (whilst ignore the fact that a site
can be accessible) will alienate people from using the WAI, me included.


What's important in all of this is that machine readable labels can
cover guidelines that aren't necessarily categorised, so users can
choose the most important ones for their requirements. 

Please refrain from telling me to stop using a specific reason for my
side of the argument. I've seen this debate go on for long enough and am
aware that it has been used. Common sense tells me that if a site meets
Double-A standards and is very user friendly, you can't fail it just
because the code doesn't pass a test using a tool.

Kind regards,
Paul
Segala

      -----Original Message-----
      From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
On
      Behalf Of Roberto Castaldo
      Sent: 05 November 2005 16:37
      To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
      Subject: Re: Validity
      
      
      Hi group,
      
      i do not like any action in favour of tag soup, and I'm afraid we
risk to do
      that; the  problem, the real problem about tag soup, is that none
of us is
      really able to define what an hypothetical "good tag soup" may be;
so it's
      not possible to write a single guideline, or a tecnique that says
how to
      write good code without validating it.
      
      Maurizio and Paul, we all know that a valid page can have terrible
code (but
      none has never said it, so please stop using this argument), so
valid code
      by itself is not enough, but it is one of the few anchors, one of
the few
      impartial and objective milestones which is testable by everyone
and that
      gives the best interoperability guarantee. That's why  valid code
is the
      best starting point for any web based project, and cannot be other
than L1.
      
      And what about the W3C compliant authoring tools shortage? That's
the actual
      situation of the market (Flash itself is not compliant, let's all
admit it),
      but W3C and WAI do not have simply to "shoot photos" of the
market; W3C and
      WAI must say how the future Web - and  consequently the future IT
market -
      should be in order to get the maximum level of accessibility for
web
      applications. If we only give a lazy look to the market's
situation, web
      developers will perceive that the actual context is ok, and none
will be
      pushed to create better web sites and authoring tools.
      
      Finally, we all should also consider that WCAG (together with
other W3C
      recommandations) have also a great educational value, that's why
we must
      push the message that any web project should (not could) be based
on W3C
      guidelines.
      
      My best regards,
      
      Roberto Castaldo
      -----------------------------------
      www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
      IWA/HWG Member
      rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org
      r.castaldo@iol.it
      Icq 178709294
      ------------------------------------
      
      
      
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 17:11:47 GMT

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