- From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 17:11:49 -0000
- To: "'Roberto Castaldo'" <r.castaldo@iol.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Firstly, why do you amongst others, feel that the only testable guidelines are those that are done using tools? We certify sites every week and if we were to failed them as a result of invalid code, the vast majority of them would fail - even though they meet all Double-A and two checkpoints in Treble-AAA. I hope you're not trying to tell me that these sites should fail the basic level of accessibility just because they contain invalid code? If you are, then you don't live in the real world. I will reiterate, introducing validity to the lowest level of conformance (whilst ignore the fact that a site can be accessible) will alienate people from using the WAI, me included. What's important in all of this is that machine readable labels can cover guidelines that aren't necessarily categorised, so users can choose the most important ones for their requirements. Please refrain from telling me to stop using a specific reason for my side of the argument. I've seen this debate go on for long enough and am aware that it has been used. Common sense tells me that if a site meets Double-A standards and is very user friendly, you can't fail it just because the code doesn't pass a test using a tool. Kind regards, Paul Segala -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Castaldo Sent: 05 November 2005 16:37 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Validity Hi group, i do not like any action in favour of tag soup, and I'm afraid we risk to do that; the problem, the real problem about tag soup, is that none of us is really able to define what an hypothetical "good tag soup" may be; so it's not possible to write a single guideline, or a tecnique that says how to write good code without validating it. Maurizio and Paul, we all know that a valid page can have terrible code (but none has never said it, so please stop using this argument), so valid code by itself is not enough, but it is one of the few anchors, one of the few impartial and objective milestones which is testable by everyone and that gives the best interoperability guarantee. That's why valid code is the best starting point for any web based project, and cannot be other than L1. And what about the W3C compliant authoring tools shortage? That's the actual situation of the market (Flash itself is not compliant, let's all admit it), but W3C and WAI do not have simply to "shoot photos" of the market; W3C and WAI must say how the future Web - and consequently the future IT market - should be in order to get the maximum level of accessibility for web applications. If we only give a lazy look to the market's situation, web developers will perceive that the actual context is ok, and none will be pushed to create better web sites and authoring tools. Finally, we all should also consider that WCAG (together with other W3C recommandations) have also a great educational value, that's why we must push the message that any web project should (not could) be based on W3C guidelines. My best regards, Roberto Castaldo ----------------------------------- www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator IWA/HWG Member rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org r.castaldo@iol.it Icq 178709294 ------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 17:11:47 UTC