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

RE: validity.htm

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:29:58 +0100
To: <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511091123312.SM03720@Inbox>

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Andrew Kirkpatrick"<akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
    Inviato: 09/11/05 17.15.40
    A: "Bailey, Bruce"<Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: validity.htm
    What would be interesting to see is a study of sites where the developer
    had accessibility as a goal and those sites divided into two groups -
    those where validity was or was not an additional goal.  That would be a
    fairer comparison that would remove the mass of developers who care
    neither about validity nor accessibility.
If they declare wcag 1.0 double A they must have valid code. If they have a wcag 1.0 level A focus, the real accessibility is really poor.
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:26:46 UTC

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