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

Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:32:57 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200506201230765.SM04196@Inbox>

Following your consideration, seems that a text-only page should Be accessible :)
But my question is: we want to guarantee, as in the wai project request, accessibility for all or accessibility for some disabilities?
Serving invalid code as xhtml cause inaccessibility by ua that support this racommendation: this is why is requested as priority 1, otherwise as I told before, we are making Jurassic Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Maurizio Boscarol"<maurizio@usabile.it>
    Inviato: 20/06/05 18.16.43
    A: "Roberto Castaldo"<r.castaldo@iol.it>
    Cc: "'Matt May'"<mcmay@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Oggetto: Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
    Roberto Scano:
     > An interesting article:
    I think you go on missing the point. Valid code is better. What I say is 
    that it is not true that *only valid code can lead to accessible pages*. 
    So we must not put it in p1! It's a very basic reasoning.
     > And a piece of interview to Judy Brewer (all text is interesting!):
     > http://easi.cc/media/trans/tnbrewer.htm
    Oops... this page is inacessible... cause it's invalid. And you said 
    nothing? ;-)
     > "If you are generating a sort of junk HTML, or if you are generating 
    invalid markup, you
     > are invariably introducing some accessibility problems with that 
    because it is harder for
     > the assistive technologies to work with the invalid markup."
    Even if it's harder for assistive technologies to work with invalid 
    markup, it doesn't mean that invalid markup can't be accessible. The 
    real world is an evidence. The same Judy's interview page is an 
    evidence. If it weren't true, no disable user should be able to navigate 
    up to now... and that is false.
    Hard do not mean impossible.
    So it's why valid code is *important*, but not a *preliminar requisite* 
    to accessibility.
    Roberto Castaldo:
     > What I'm trying to say is that valid code can be considered - by W3C 
     > groups making standards for the Web - as the only starting point on 
    which a
     > developer can base its accessible pages.
    And what I think I've proved with my examples is that valid code is not 
    the only way to have some accessibile page. It's better to have valid 
    code, but is not the only starting point. It is more like a sort of 
    higher quality assurance. But there's a lot of thing far more important.
    We have to put in p1 only things that always raise up real accessibility 
    walls, things that make content impossible to access, things disabled 
    users can't live without. If a text equivalent is missing, there's no 
    way to access to that content. No way.
    (I think Bruce Bailey is joking with this argument in his mail: alt text 
    is p1, definitively, as we all know: it is often the only mean to offer 
    real alternative content, and image names isn't enough; validity isn't a 
    real mean to nothing but semantic web, as far as I can tell, but 
    semantic web isn't accessibility).
    So you should demonstrate that all invalid pages (not only some of them) 
    makes content really inaccessibile, not only sometimes harder to access 
    and understand: it is a very different concept. If you can demonstrate 
    this, I will agree to put validity in p1.

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 16:33:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:26 UTC