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

RE: Validity as a technique

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC <Norman.B.Robinson@usps.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:48:48 -0500
Message-ID: <EAF95052690D174A833DC58B15AB6A8819E8D2@WADCHQSXM24.usa.dce.usps.gov>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Well then; let me chime in.

	My professional role is advocate for support of Section 508. My
personal role is years of suffering through bad technology and process
and a perspective on accessibility as a user, software developer,
systems integration engineer, and program manager.

	I welcome the current debate on the subject; please argue your
points as strongly as possible. Take it personally, because let me tell
you on no uncertain terms it is personal. Not in the sense that someone
is arguing with you or against you, but because there are individuals
that rely on *YOU* and what you do now. Don't just focus on the
semantics or rationalize your role as not being involved with others for
administrative process reasons. There is someone sitting on the other
end of a computer who's life is affected by your participation.

	With all due respect to the poster, the discussion of sufficient
vs. necessary is a logic trap. Sufficient is barely enough. The title of
this group has something to do with "accessibility" somewhere doesn't
it? If you settle for sufficient, you are doing a sufficient job. We
need excellence. Necessary equates to required. Yet, we all know that we
have seen content that will not validate and it was accessible.
Obviously, validation wasn't necessary. But why? I submit you can't know
without all the particulars, just as if you had validation on content
and then it was not accessible. At least if their was a review for
validation you can further logically determine it is either the
validation process failed or the technology using the content failed.
Validation should be required so the toolset or developers can have a
standard to test against and increase the likelihood they will make a
quality product.

	Rather than just argue the point again, I'll see if I can get to
review your current guidelines in consideration of the current line of
debate. That at least will drive this to something specific for you all
to consider.

	I'll repeat my premise:  validation is required. Not necessary,
but required. If the WAI doesn't accept and solve this challenge, all
your hard work will be resolved by lawyers, not people that have a
chance to understand the technical and social issues based on the
current technologies.

	Let me leave with a comment on this debate. I have a great deal
of respect for those that fight to clarify the issues. I intend no
disrespect and hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong. We're all in this
together and need to focus on the positive and plan on how things fail.


	Norman B. Robinson
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 17:48:59 UTC

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