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

RE: validity.htm

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 08:36:02 -0800
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C93221064CAFA9@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

>  Roberto:
> 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.

Sorry. I meant accessible to users, not to guidelines.  The study I'd
like 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.  The accessibility would be measured
by users, not by WCAG/508/CLF/etc. criteria. That would be a fairer
comparison that would remove the mass of developers who care neither
about validity nor accessibility.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:36:34 UTC

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