- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:16:27 +0100
- To: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Jens Meiert wrote: >>>>As you know, I personally think that something is better than >>>>nothing. :) So, the XML specification that say that UA shouldn't >>>>attempt to render invalid pages are wrong and against accessibility, >>>>because decrease the chance of someone accessing something. >>>> >>>> >>>To stick with automotive metaphors, isn't this the same as saying >>>"just drive, you do not need to know the traffic rules, because it >>>might hinder you from driving"? >>> >>> >>No, it isn't. The methaphor is unadequate. If you don't know traffic >>rules, you'll end crash and kill someone, for sure. If you miss some >>validation issue your page can still be accessible, and in many case it >>is: disabled people (and UA, and AT) can copy with it. >> >> > >No. There is also some probability that you cross the city unharmed, as >there on the other side is the risk that an invalid page might fail in >certain UAs. And this risk ain't quite low, as you need to anticipate a >future where more and more UAs behave more and more strict. So that risk is >definitely high, and the metaphor I used proves useful, I fear. > You're right. We'd better following the metaphor. You need a driving license to drive, even if you already can drive. That's the law. We aren't making law or releasing licenses. We should address what is a real accessibility problem. Lack of validity itself isn't an accessibility problem. Better: it actually is only with application/xhtml+xml mime type, so we should cover that case. We should focus on how to find and eliminate barriers to access. Maurizio
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 22:08:06 UTC