- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:24:20 -0500
- To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Kynn, I am not trying to argue that validity == accessible. I am guessing that, in actual practice, any author or organization which bothers to routinely publish only valid code is also publishing accessible code -- even if they are not making a point to do the latter! You have provided very succinct proof that valid code can have quite significant accessibility problems, I don't debate that argument! What I question is if these theoretic potential problems arise on live sites. Is anyone actually posting code fragments of the type you cite in finished and valid pages? My point is that we might get more mileage promoting validity than accessibility. We would still be working to achieve the goal of universal design! There are simple binary tests for validity. This is very important for amateur authors and less-than-technically minded bureaucrats who are charged with enforcing policies. Obstinate authors have a hard time arguing against the merits of validity, even as they doubt the need for accessibility. Once someone has acknowledged the importance of writing platform-independent standards-compliant code, making the pitch to include accessibility accommodations is an easy sell. I don't think we should give up advocating for accessibility. I do wonder if our arsenal includes powerful weapons that we are not taking proper advantage of. Please cite an actual working URL where the pages are valid, but violate Priority 1 checkpoints of the WCAG. -- Bruce > -----Original Message----- > > I think I am missing your point. What is the point you're trying > to make or prove? > > -- > Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org > President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ > AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 08:26:16 UTC