- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:34:56 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi John, On 20/06/05, John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote: <blockquote> The example I sent just happens to be an instance of a case where valid code doesn't guarantee accessibility. </blockquote> I think everyone involved in this discussion agrees that validity is not a guarantee of accessibility. I'm concerned that this particular debate has turned into a point-scoring exercise, rather than looking at the true implications of endorsing invalid markup as being acceptable at level 1. The example you posted poses problems with some user-agents, but more to the point, would the problems disappear if the markup presented also contained some invalid elements and/or attributes? My concern about invalid markup is not only about the situation we're in now, but also the future. Whatever recommendations WCAG come up with will presumably be with us for the next few years. Allowing invalid markup at level 1 is an endorsement that web standards achieve nothing. Whilst everyone agrees that validity doesn't guarantee accessibility, does any one agree that validity is harmful for accessibility? If I knew someone that got knocked down by a car walking down the pavement (side walk), it wouldn't lead me to think it was safer to walk in the road. Validity has to be essential for testability, otherwise the outcome couldn't possibly be known. This point is proved by the way that some assistive technologies work. At the moment, some assistive technologies sit on top of browsers (like Internet Explorer) that do manage to make sense of the content, so that the assistive technology at least knows it has a workable document tree. This type of arrangement puts companies like Microsoft in an incredibly powerful position. This isn't a knock at Microsoft; I would feel strongly about any company that ended up in such a powerful position that could be avoided if developers concentrated on developing valid documents. If the situation improves, assistive technologies wouldn't be dependent on companies with deep pockets that were able to cope with anything thrown at it, and achieve the true operability promised in the original vision of the web. Surely WCAG need to be proactive in encouraging this? Personally, I don't see this as being the Internet police. This is no different from requiring any other constraints that ultimately lead to better accessibility. Validity is a solid foundation on which to build accessibility, and I think it would be a mistake if WCAG brushed this issue aside as an ideal. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 18:35:00 UTC