- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:23:30 +0000
- To: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Cc: WCAG WG mailing list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 04/11/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote: > Gez Lemon wrote: > >1: Validity isn't essential for accessibility > > And this is the most important fact. It would be the most important fact if validity never impacted accessibility. You're concluding that this statement never impacts accessibility, which is quite obviously incorrect. It is a fact that just walking in the road won't necessarily get you run over by a car, but that does not mean that it is a good idea to walk in the road. > It' simple. Real case. You take an assistive technology and an invalid > page, and test. Most of times, you find that a number of invalidity > issues won't result in assistive technologies impossibility of copying > with content, and understand that in those cases validity isn't > essential. That's really all: observe reality. In that case, why are we bothering with guidelines at all? Wouldn't it just be simpler to say, "Do what you like, and if it causes anyone a problem, change it." One principle, and we'll easily reach our deadline of publishing this week. If we want to move this issue on so that we reach our publishing deadline, it would be more useful to accurately state the pros and cons of having validity in the guidelines, and try and come to a consensus that we may not all like, but could live with. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 14:23:35 UTC