W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:30:42 -0700
Message-ID: <42B073D2.7040805@w3.org>
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?

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 18:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:40 UTC