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

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

From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:37:26 +0200
Message-ID: <42A58FDB003DB841@ms001msg.mail.fw> (added by postmaster@fastwebnet.it)
To: "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>
Cc: "'Matt May'" <mcmay@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>

And what I think I've proved with my examples is that valid code is not the
only way to have some accessibile page. 

Roberto C:
Maybe you don't need to prove things we all agree on: an accessible page can
be a not valid page, we all agree on this.

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.

Roberto C:
Not true, Maurizio. I could say that not all missing text equivalents
represent a problem; decorative images do not need any equivalent text, but
why should we focus on exceptions in making WCAG rules? Simply we don't have
to. I think that saying that equivalent text is strongly requested is ok for
WCAG, and it's ok to put it at level 1, because it represents a strong rule
which is one of the bases in making a page accessible. 

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.

Roberto C:
I think this is not the right direction; i've just shown you that it's not
true that every missing alt text makes content really inaccessible, so I
don't need to demonstrate that all invalid pages are not accessible. 

Once again, we cannot take care of vendors needs and browsers or assistive
technologies' bugs and model WCAG 2.0 only on the present snapshot of the
Web; browsers and assistive technologies should adopt web standards, not the
WCAG 2.0 guidelines will last many years, so they must have the same long
term view WCAG 1.0 had. 
Please, let's not base the WCAG 2.0 on some exception which should be
handled as an exception, not as a rule.

But then we should decide if semantic web is a mission of the wcag...

Roberto C:
Some (important) people says that semantic web will be tomorrow's Web. Does
anyone of us imagine or wish a not accessible Web? I don't think so.
Semantic web cannot be not accessible, of course.

My best regards

Roberto Castaldo
www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
IWA/HWG Member
Icq 178709294
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 22:07:12 UTC

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