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

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

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:43:29 +0200
Message-ID: <42B74691.8070003@usabile.it>
To: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
CC: 'Matt May' <mcmay@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG' <rscano@iwa-italy.org>

Hi Roberto and all.

Roberto Castaldo wrote:

>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.

Oh, great.
So we don't need to put validation in p1. :-)

Otherwise can you please show me what kind of issues should we put on 
p1? I think this is needed to have an agree on this discussion. I took 
the two level 1 criteria:
1) Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup, scripting, 
or other technologies that interact with or enable access through user 
agents, including assistive technologies
2) Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.

>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. 

No? Really strange. I thought that without a text equivalent, a non 
verbal content couldn't be accessed, but maybe I'm wrong.

>I could say that not all missing text equivalents
>represent a problem; decorative images do not need any equivalent text, 

Well, you haven't demonstrated that there's another way to access the 
non-verbal content without a text equivalent. As far as I can see you 
have only demonstrated that not all non-verbal content need a 
text-equivalent. That is another issue, on which I agree. But textual 
equivalent is the only mean to provide the information, if needed. And 
if missing when needed, the content isn't accessible.

Validation doesn't serve this purpose. Semantic and structural markup 
serve this purpose, even if the page has little errors in validation.

>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. 

I'm not happy with your demonstration, as I've said. But just tell me 
why validation should be at level 1, looking at the same criteria that 
has been used for every other L1 success criteria. They are all very 
important thing. If missing, the content or functionality is surely 
missing. If missing validation with text/html content, what is missing? 
It depends, but nothing for sure.

I believed that level 1 is "the level we coudn't live without". And real 
world prove that we can live without valid pages: they can be 
accessible, as you said. So I can't see a reason to put it in L1.

>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. 

Guess who... ;-)

>anyone of us imagine or wish a not accessible Web? I don't think so.
>Semantic web cannot be not accessible, of course.

I'll be happier if every fan of validation would admit honestly that 
this is the most important reason they want validation as a preliminar 
requisite. The one and the only to put it in L1. And that this has 
little to do with basic web accessibility. But I won't have this 
satisfaction, I'm sure. ;-)

I stay with my beliefs that wcag should address accessibility problems, 
not other w3c's brand new ideas.


Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 22:34:39 UTC

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