- From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:49:53 -0000
- To: "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I was just about to respond with a similar note, thanks Mauizio. And this is after reading Bruce's email too. - Validity does not equal accessibility. Validity is a best practise. - An accessible website can still contain invalid code - If a website passes every checkpoint but contains invalid code, it's impossible to say that some assistive technologies will not work properly, why? Because every checkpoint wouldn't have passed. ------ If a page isn't rendered, than it wouldn't pass any guideline... you don't need a specific validation guideline: the system simply doesn't work at all! And, according to principle 1, the content is NOT perceivable: failed! It's so simple. (1) I think Paul stated a main concept: *if a validation error is important for accessibility, it should already be covered by another guideline!* - i.e., if a table validation error messes up the readability of the data, it violates principle 3 and also guideline 1.3. That's all. Validation is just a different topic from accessibility, sometimes related and sometimes not (and related doesn't mean "it's the same"!). We need to address only validation problems that cause problems to accessibility: and obviously we should do this by covering them with all the other guidelines. And if, after that, we still have validation problem that aren't covered by other guidelines, that should mean that that problem isn't relevant for accessibility! This is true if the whole set of guidelines is appropriately done, as we all want!
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 15:49:51 UTC