- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:33:55 +0100
- To: <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Fully agree. Also i've asked how come characteristics at level 1 can progrmmatically determinate if a parser cannot parse correctly the page code. ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Gez Lemon"<gez.lemon@gmail.com> Inviato: 04/11/05 6.07.54 A: "WCAG WG mailing list"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Oggetto: Validity I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of discussion about guideline 4.1 (the importance of validity). This is obviously an exceptionally contentious guideline, and I can't help thinking that it would be better to tackle this guideline openly, rather than hoping we can push it through at the last moment and hope that no one noticed. This is one of those issues that it would be incredibly useful if someone who was unbiased could regularly and accurately summarise, as it is highly likely that those who feel passionately about this issue (myself included) will attempt to overwhelm contradictory views by rewording the same argument in the hope that each rewording is counted as an opposing opinion. My only interest in validity is about accessibility. I have no other agenda that I'm hoping to sneak by anyone other than in the interest of accessibility. I would really like to understand the opinions of those that object to validity being important enough to be included in the guidelines. The arguments put forwards against validity (from the face-to-face meeting in Seattle) can be summarised as: 1: Validity isn't essential for accessibility 2: Some developers think they're being clever creating accessible content, but they aren't 3: The people who wrote the specification don't really want anyone to be bothered by it 4: Legislation could result in people being prosecuted for invalid markup Point 1 is concerning, particularly considering that level 1 issues tend to be about ensuring that content is understandable by assistive technology. If content is invalid, I don't understand how it could be testable that assistive technology is able to make sense of the content. If something is intended to be machine readable then validity is obviously important, as it needs to be read by software unambiguously. In simple terms, validity is important for assistive technology. Point 2 is a bit of a strange argument - It's an edge-case argument directed at people who write valid markup, but miss the point about semantics and accessibility. The analogy provided for this argument is cargo cult programming [1]. Ignoring the issue that very few web developers are programmers of any variety, it's an extremely patronising viewpoint. It's fair to say that alternate text is rarely appropriate, or not provided at all for non-text content on the Web, but I've never heard a suggestion that we shouldn't trouble developers with the task of providing alternate text because some developers miss the point. Surely this issue would be better addressed with education than dismissal? An equivalent analogy would be, "I know someone that was knocked down by a car on a pavement (sidewalk), and so I therefore conclude that it's safer to walk in the road." Common sense tells us that this is nonsense. Validity alone doesn't ensure that content is accessible, in the same way that walking down a path (sidewalk) doesn't ensure we won't be run over by a car, but it reduces the risk in a way that is too significant to ignore. It's a fundamental principle that I believe is essential in ensuring that content is accessible. Point 3 is just someone else's opinion, which I assume is meant to carry more weight than the average WCAG member's opinion. For the easily impressed, this is a good argument; for the rest of us, an explanation of how this person's (or persons') opinion is more relevant than ours would be useful. Maybe they should be invited to participate in the discussion to avoid the danger of misrepresentation? [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 07:31:10 UTC