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 23:56:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4988@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
> If you are concerned that validity is important enough to be 
> considered a basic requirement for your government's policy, 
> then you can add it to WCAG conformance in any laws you propose.

I suppose there is a slim chance that validity might somehow turn up in some reinventing government or best practices initiative.  Certainly you know the limited ability of the average US citizen to make law.  As a Federal employee, I have even less chance than that since I am proscribed from most political activity.

I am, however, in position to have some modest influence regarding how certain statutes should be interpreted or applied, at least in my own agency.  I can also make an informed guess based on personal experience as to how policy might get developed.  There is not a whisper of Section 508 mark 2, but the formal publication in the Federal Register discussed that the particulars would be revisited.

Assuming this happens, history provides evidence that the standards will be strongly influence by WCAG2.  Again, if history is a guide, only the most objective WCAG2 Level 1 success criteria can hope to make it to 508 Accessibility Standards.  Based on this logic, if the WAI (and by implication the W3C) isnít comfortable promoting validity at Level 1, validity will not get into 508.  The consequences are hardly devastating, since we donít have a validity requirement now, and accessibility is really very good.

Do you disagree that it would be better for people with disabilities in the U.S., if 508 incorporated validity?
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 04:57:03 GMT

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