Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers

Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:

>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.
>  
>

Note that many of the WG that met in Brussels probably have been in 
transit. I may be (almost) alone in arguing the point, but I'm not 
outnumbered.

It's also not about "hobbyists". It's about most of the authors on the 
Web -- and the vast majority of existing authoring tools. You're 
painting this as a small problem with some bad actors. Since it's been 
my full-time job for the last three years to fix problems like this, I 
can guarantee you that it is far more widespread. In fact, it's the 
status quo. It's simply not something we can legislate away.

>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.
>  
>

Roberto, you do know that I'm the staff contact of the PFWG, right? I've 
also spoken with one of the HTML WG co-chairs, and while he agrees that 
it's a tough problem, he does recognize that this WG isn't here to 
enforce his WG's specs, but to aid accessibility. I will also take this 
to PF, but I think you're just shopping for someone who supports your 
point of view.

And again, silence is not authorization. How many times do I have to say 
that?

>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?
>  
>

Take it to AU. That's where discussion of authoring tool output belongs.

In fact, I've done it for you.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005AprJun/0074.html

-
m

Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 16:55:37 UTC