RE: Validity as a technique

> But I suppose that depends what happens with Guideline 4.1: 
> Use technologies according to specification.
> 
> > I agree with you that validity is a great factor in making 
> sure things 
> > can be programmatically determined
> 
> Not merely a great factor, but explicitly necessary.

I know you and other people see it that way (and I'm not saying you're
wrong!). But I'm trying to use language that is acceptable to both sides of
the discussion so not to polarize the discussion any further. I'm trying to
find a compromise that is acceptable to all and try to use neutral language
where I can. 

> 
> > which is why I want to include it in the techniques for all these 
> > success criteria.
> 
> That is not good enough.

Could you please not simply say that you disagree with me but explain what
you mean?

> 
> > I don't see why it is necessary to put it in the guidelines as well.
> 
> Clearly, but you would be mistaken about that.

Could you give me some examples of accessibility problems that would be
caught by requiring validity in the document (your wish) and not by
addressing validity in the techniques for the 'programmatically determined'
success criteria (my proposal)? 

> 
> Yvette, do you imagine your proposal as being compatible with 
> removing validity as a Level 2 (or 3) success criteria?

In my proposal, we wouldn't need to address validity at all in our
guidelines and view validity as a technique to ensure the other
accessibility requirements can be met. As such I propose to delete them from
the guidelines (all levels) and only talk about techniques.

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl

Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 20:51:24 UTC