- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:30:42 -0700
- To: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Ineke van der Maat wrote: > Hello Matt, > > You wrote: > >> In fact, even among the more enlightened developers, it's hard to >> find one who hasn't had a client who made them do something that >> broke HTML validity. > > > In the html book (html bible) I have, I can read about valid websites > and also about accessibility. The designers you write about, have > simply the wrong books or had/have the wrong teacher. I'm sorry for not being clearer. The people I'm talking about _are_ the Web standards advocates. But they have a job to do, and it's an unfair position to put them in to say that they can either try to make the sites they design accessible, or have clients pay them. We can still get them to convince clients of the benefits of accessibility (where it's not already law or organizational policy), but we can't expect them to force-feed validity as a part of the equation, as well. To answer your rhetorical question: > Do you also tell your baker how to bake the bread? No, but I also don't buy bread I don't like. And lots of people don't buy wheat bread simply because their doctor tells them it's healthy. If enlightened designers are forced to be valid, and as a result aren't able to meet clients' requirements in ways that don't damage accessibility, then the really dumb HTML designers have a market advantage, because they don't care about accessibility or validity at all. Do we want to make poor coders easier to hire? - m
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 18:30:46 UTC