RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Mmm. We are talking about "authoring tools accessibility guidelines", not about "assistive technologies accessibility guidelines". 
Your example is not in-topic because validity is not a pre-requiste like hardware presence, etc.
Having an authoring tool that generate tag-soup is good for accessibility? Using elements like font, misding close parameters, using wrong entities isn't accessibility issue?
Remember that we are not in ISO 16071 where accessibility means "usability for disabled people" but means "possibility for everyone to access content / use authoring tools for generate contents".
And a lot of plugins available by third party for big vendor CMS is a testimonial about how people require this. Think that new Version of MS, Adobe/Macromedia authoring tools will produce only valid code, for help the web evolution.

---
    Valid code is NOT a disability issue. 
    If a piece of software doesn't compile, it's not a disability issue.  If a 
    piece of hardware is physically broken, is not a disability issue.  I 
    believe we need to keep the definition of accessibility to only deal with 
    disabilities.  If not, we'll go crazy adding all the other prerequisites; 
    such as: Is there electricity?  Are there phone lines to access the 
    internet?, Is there a working computer?  Is everything bug free? etc.etc. 
    
    I believe the code should be valid, just not that that should be in an 
    accessibility checklist for Authoring tool developers.  They have other 
    checklist for that stuff - lets not loose credibility with them...
    
    Regards,
    Phill Jenkins
    IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 19:52:09 UTC