- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:29:58 +0100
- To: <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Andrew Kirkpatrick"<akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Inviato: 09/11/05 17.15.40
A: "Bailey, Bruce"<Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Oggetto: RE: validity.htm
What would be interesting to see is a study of sites where the developer
had accessibility as a goal and those sites divided into two groups -
those where validity was or was not an additional goal. That would be a
fairer comparison that would remove the mass of developers who care
neither about validity nor accessibility.
Roberto:
If they declare wcag 1.0 double A they must have valid code. If they have a wcag 1.0 level A focus, the real accessibility is really poor.
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:26:46 UTC