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

Summary of alternatives or variations

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:01:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D49A1@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am endeavoring to write for the position that holds that WCAG2 must not, at the very least, imperil the importance of validity in the promotion of accessibility.  This school of thought believes that listing validity as a Level 2 (or 3) success criteria is, in fact, significantly worse than omitting reference to it at all.  This faction is more flexible than the “Validity must be Level 1” camp and, at this point, I am not clear who is representing them.  (Nor am I sure I am representing anyone other than my own humble set, but I have not been cut down yet, so here I go...)

In less than twelve hours three items have been my earlier list of acceptable outcomes, so I will post the compilation.  I regard all but the first (of course) as being compromise positions.  I will list them here in order of person preference.

The last one (8) is new, not sure where that came from.

Based on the discussion today, I count Matt and Yvette as being okay with (7) and Becky as being okay with (4).  I am not clear if Matt or Yvette or Becky are okay with the other outcomes, but they have made it clear they are against (1).

(1)  Validity at Level 1.

(2)  Validity at Level 1 with instance-oriented possibility for disclaimer.

(3)  Make it explicit that (for html at least) validity is required as a necessary prerequisite for all success criteria that "can be programmatically determined".

(4)  A delay while we attempt to reach consensus and/or conduct research on the implication of validity for accessibility.  (We could use the time for a formal usability study on the current working draft as well.)

(5)  Delegate the decision to a person or organization acceptable to all.  I suggested earlier TBL as he *might* be coerced into the role quickly (by Gregg or Judy, should either dare ask).  If this is a religious war, as some have asserted, this could settle the matter.

(6)  Define well-formedness for HTML and have that at Level 1.  Sanctioned automated testing tools would have to be made available for this IMMEDIATELY.  (But based on Becky’s comments, I have to wonder maybe this is already done and I somehow missed it?)

(7)  Omit reference to validity ENTIRELY from success criteria.  (Or even maybe omit current Guideline 4.1 altogether -- Use technologies according to specification?  Do Guidelines without SC make sense?)

(8)  Strategically obfuscate validity by using terms or phrases that are technology neutral, like “correct syntax” or “grammar checking”.
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 02:01:44 UTC

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