- From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:48:45 -0800
- To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Cc: "WCAG WG mailing list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Gez, Validity is not really my concern here, and I expect a compromise to be possible. There was a metaphor used earlier about staying on the sidewalk being a wise strategy for avoiding cars. The underlying assumption in this metaphor is that the guy who built the road actually talked with the guy that laid the sidewalk. It should be true that they work in recognition of one another's efforts. The reality in the technology space is that the various players in any given space do not coordinate. This is not malicious. It is reality. I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby an author may deviate from valid code for reasons specific to accessibility for the audience defined in their own baseline. Cheers, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305 -----Original Message----- From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:43 AM To: Bob Regan Cc: WCAG WG mailing list Subject: Re: Validity Hi Bob, On 04/11/05, Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com> wrote: > This is an old debate that we have had in detail before in multiple > working groups. I'm aware that it's an old debate, but it's still an issue without a resolution; at least in WCAG 2.0. We need to come up with something that we can get consensus on, which probably wouldn't be that difficult if we could find some middle-ground. The people that believe validity is important believe it with a passion, and those that don't believe it's important believe it with an equal passion. Consequently, the debates end up full of passion, which makes it difficult to focus on the real issues as they get swamped with edge-cases. How can we compromise? Are those against validity at level 1 also against it level 2? Could we live with a watered-down version of validity at level 1, and full validity at level 3? Could we live with validity being removed completely from the guidelines, and addressed in appropriate techniques? I think if we concentrate on these types of questions, with someone who feels indifferent about validity as an arbiter, we could make progress and reach our deadline with minimal disruptions. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 16:49:57 UTC