Re: Need Clarification on #170

Hi Makoto

The proposal in the issue was to ensure that pages validate to the spec
declared on the page

To help contribute some historical context to this. There was an incredibly
difficult set of discussions around validation during WCAG 2.0. After many
months of heated debate the Working group decided not to require full
validation, but rather only a subset in 4.1.1 of validation errors that
affect people with disabilities disproportionally. The reasons were as
follows:

   1. Many/most validation errors don't disproportionally affect people
   with disabilities such as users of Assistive Technology.
   2. Validation is a time consuming and sometimes expensive exercise, and
   the group was concerned that it would burn up the accessibility budget on
   issues that don't affect people with disabilities.
   3. We have instead required only the following validation rules:
      - elements have complete start and end tags,
      - elements are nested according to their specifications,
      - elements do not contain duplicate attributes,
      - and any IDs are unique,
   4. We strongly support and encourage validation and list it as the first
   sufficient technique for 4.1.1
   https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-parses.html

I'm guessing that these may be some of the reasons why this didn't find a
champion to push it for consideration. We already considered it in 2.0, and
there don't appear to be any new reasons to require validation. In recent
years many sites don't validate, by design. And introducing this now would
inhibit designs that may not be proved to have accessibility barriers.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <
makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thanks. Yes, I will. I'll keep conversation with him and think about it.
>
>
> - Makoto
>
>
>
> 2018-01-11 0:45 GMT+09:00 John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>:
> > Hi Makoto,
> >
> > Like all of the SC, they require a "champion" to stay on top of progress
> and
> > ensure that the SC moves forward. If your colleague believes this is
> > important, you might consider encouraging them to get more directly
> > involved. After all, we'll likely start work on WCAG 2.2 later this
> > summer...
> >
> > JF
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.
> > <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> Thank you so much for your response. I'll let him know the situation the
> >> WG had.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Makoto
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-10 0:53 GMT+09:00 Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>:
> >> > Makoto,
> >> > We had hoped to get to this, but with all of the other proposals no
> one
> >> > moved this one forward so it didn’t get adopted. We have ideas that
> were
> >> > raised well before this one, but if the WG wasn’t able to agree that
> it was
> >> > ready to move into the editor’s draft by August 22 then they were not
> able
> >> > to get into WCAG 2.1.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > AWK
> >> >
> >> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >> > Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> >> > Adobe
> >> >
> >> > akirkpat@adobe.com
> >> > http://twitter.com/awkawk
> >> >
> >> > On 1/9/18, 10:47, "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." <
> makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >     Dear Andrew and Joshue,
> >> >
> >> >     There was a proposed SC which was presented on 23 Mar 2017. I
> >> > happend
> >> >     to find this #170 a few weeks ago.
> >> >
> >> >     New SC proposal: Harmonization with other newer specifications
> #170
> >> >
> >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F170&
> data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C152d65969e83420f36ea08d557785064%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511096619710193&sdata=
> uLgLTT3ZXboOC4vBinOsJPB51XcJs1Cz968E0tzcQW8%3D&reserved=0
> >> >
> >> >     This proposal was not accepted. I'd like to confirm the reason.
> >> >
> >> >     The reason was desribed on GitHub saying that "it hasn't been
> >> > adopted
> >> >     by the Working Group in time for the August 22 deadline for new SC
> >> > in
> >> >     WCAG 2.1 so we are deferring it for consideration in future
> >> > releases."
> >> >
> >> >     This explanation is not acceptable because he made the proposal in
> >> >     March. It means the working group had six months. Was it simply
> due
> >> > to
> >> >     the schedule?
> >> >
> >> >     I think that the working group should explain the reason why the
> >> >     proposed SC was not adopted in more detail so that he can
> understand
> >> >     it. He didn't satisfied with the response from the working group
> and
> >> >     still remains unconvinced.
> >> >
> >> >     Could you please clarify the reason for him? Thank you in advance
> >> > for your time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     Best regards,
> >> >     Makoto
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Foliot
> > Principal Accessibility Strategist
> > Deque Systems Inc.
> > john.foliot@deque.com
> >
> > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>
> --
> --
> <以下、署名>
>
> 株式会社インフォアクシア
> 植木 真
> <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>
>
> 104-0054 東京都中央区勝どき1丁目13-6 プラザタワー勝どき 3011
> TEL：03-5547-5777 FAX：03-5547-5778
> http://www.infoaxia.co.jp/
> https://www.facebook.com/weba11y.jp
>
>