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

Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:06:37 +0200
To: <maurizio@usabile.it>, <mcmay@w3.org>
Cc: <r.castaldo@iol.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200506181203218.SM03084@Inbox>

Mmm triple A means not reachable.... So you think that is not possible to reach code conformance?
We are talking now instead to some (and seems minor) group inside the working group that said that there are no possibility to set as level 1 due that web-hobbist are not ready.
I remade my question: can a w3c rec.  authorize violation of another w3c rec.? I think is not allowed, but I ask to chair to check with Protocol and Formats working group.
So making this violation means that I haven't access to a wcag 2.0 Level 1 web site with my webTV or my Firefox browser. This is accessibility for all or is accessibility at level 1 granted to vendors that produce tools that don't generate valid code?
----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Maurizio Boscarol"<maurizio@usabile.it>
    Inviato: 18/06/05 16.23.00
    A: "Matt May"<mcmay@w3.org>
    Cc: "Roberto Castaldo"<r.castaldo@iol.it>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
    Matt May wrote:
    >> We're not in a position to say what is and is not "allowed". The WCAG 
    >> WG is
    >> not the Web police. 
    I agree. I think that validation is important as general QA check, but 
    it is overstated in regard of web accessibility.
    In particular I think validation is not:
    1. A preliminar accessibility requisite.
    2. A vital check point to decide if a page is accessibile.
    I indeed think validation is:
    1. A quick and dirty check of quality of code (but not the only one)
    2. Sometimes, but not always, a quite rough predictor of accessibility, 
    especially in this stage of web evolution (people who care about code 
    tend to care also about accessibility, but this may change in different 
    periods; there isn't any guarantee);
    I see validation rather like a "triple A" issue, than a "single A", just 
    to speak in an old fashion way.
    I'll try to explain why.
    If validation were a basic accessibility issue, than the following 
    should be true:
    1. All invalid pages couldn't be accessible
    2. A valid page should be always prererred to an invalid page
    But I think both are false.
    1. Can an invalid page be accessible? Well, yes. There are different 
    example out there. If I have well structured contents, alternative 
    equivalents, but some invalid characters or some invalid attribute, that 
    may not be a problem for disable users - unless the user agent can't 
    render the page: but with text/html mime type content user agent can 
    render even invalid content, as they have always done, and so the page 
    still remains accessible.
    2. An invalid page could have a better code than an invalid one. I put 
    an example online. This page ( <http://www.usabile.it/esempi/chilosa/> ) 
    is valid, but i think it's not a good example of coding. There's another 
    page here ( <http://www.usabile.it/esempi/nonvalido/> ), that isn't 
    valid, but is far better coded, and far more accessibile due to its 
    semantic/structural markup. This new page is invalid because some minor 
    issue. The rendering is quite similar for the two pages.
    The example is useful to highlight a confounded argument inside the 
    "validation question". I think most people when talking about validation 
    assume that they are talking about good structured and semantically rich 
    pages, in opposition to old bad tag soup. This is often true, but not 
    necessarily always.
    Some valid pages could have very poor markup, as I have shown. There are 
    a lot of news sites that don't uses tables for layout, but are filled by 
    non-sensical div, they use div for almost everything, and this is not a 
    very accessibile practice, despite of being valid or invalid! Structural 
    and semantically rich code is very important, and this is not the same 
    as validation! They are sometimes related, but not always.
    Finally, there are also some pages that are invalid for some minor 
    problems, but do have good accessibility. I recently delivered some 

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 16:07:01 UTC

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