- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:02:47 +0100 (MET)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> I think the most evident argument not to put validity at level 1 is the > first: "Validity is not required for accesssibility. An accessible > website can still contain invalid code". Let's examine already accepted L1 criteria. Ain't it just consequent to state that: * An accessible website can still contain structures which cannot be programmatically determined (GL 1.3). * An accessible website can still contain text which is presented over a background image or color, which itself cannot be programmatically determined (GL 1.4). * An accessible website can still contain content which is designed so that time-outs are an essential part of interaction (GL 2.2). And a 24 hour session time-out, for example, receives L1 status, while we question the work of 192 approved W3C specifications, thereby undermining any chance of doing our bit for future-proof guidelines. Please convince me that my skepticism is inappropriate. -- Jens Meiert Information Architect http://meiert.com/ < Reloaded | Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, 228 pages, German) | In theatres November 28th: http://meiert.com/cssdesign/
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 19:03:02 UTC