W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility

From: Steven McCaffrey <smccaffr@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:41:20 -0500
Message-Id: <s8856acc.035@mail.nysed.gov>
To: <bbailey@clark.net>, <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>, <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
   
Hello:

Bruce,  

1.what are examples of "higher profile sites?"?
2.  You say  
"
 You are quite correct that there is no causal relationship between valid HTML 4 and a documents status as being accessible."

You must have performed an analysis on a representative sample to make this statement.
Please post that  list you used to this list and show me it was in fact representative, easy to do since you've already done the correlation analysis. 

-Steve
Steve McCaffrey
Information Technology Services
New York State Department of Education




>>> Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net> 01/18/00 08:44PM >>>
Dearest Kynn,

You are missing my point!

You are quite correct that there is no causal relationship between valid HTML 4
and a documents status as being accessible.  I am sure that you would agree
though that the correlation between the two is higher than mere chance would
dictate.  I am not, however, interested in academic exercises, sample code
fragments, nor pages that are composed just to prove that I am wrong.

I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about this, I am taking a bit of
a gamble.  If my assertion is false, it should be easy to disprove by providing
an example!  Please indulge me.  I ask again, please cite a specific URL (or
two) where the code IS valid, yet one or more Priority 1 WCAG checkpoints have
been violated?  The higher profile, the better.

-- Bruce

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> > I have made the assertion before that:  If a page validates, odds are that
> > it is accessible!  In light of recent discussions, I think that this point
> > warrants further promotion.  Before that though, it should be investigate
> > more.  To this end, I challenge members of this list to do a little
> > hunting...
>
> I think your assertion is false.  Validation is a good first step
> towards accessibility, but it's still just one step, and it's not
> the ONLY first step. either.
>
> > Can anyone cite a URL for a live site that formally validates as HTML 4 but
> > does NOT meet the Priority 1 checkpoints of the WCAG?
>
> BTW, note that valid HTML is a priority 2 checkpoint.
>
> What follows is a list, based on the HTML Writers Guild's accessibility
> policy's descriptions, of how you can break priority 1 checkpoints
> using valid HTML 4.
>

Good examples of valid HTML violating WCAG checkpoints [snipped].  Hey Kynn, I
was sleeping in class.  Were any of those P1s?
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 07:43:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:47 GMT