Bob Regan wrote:
I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby an author may deviate
from valid code for reasons specific to accessibility for the audience
defined in their own baseline.

Or a means by which a developer can deviate from valid code for reasons completely unrelated to accessible that can be shown to not even impact accessibility at all. There are plenty of valid reasons for deviating from valid HTML in the real world of complex web application development -- developers should have the right to be as creative as they need to be in a competitive, imperfect software world, without having to meet a blanket conformance that is completely orthoganal to accessibility.

To some, those of us not wanting to see valid code in the guidelines at all, or in the guidelines at high level, seem to biased and elitist. To me, the requirement for valid code for accessibility, when valid code sites can be proven to be completely inaccessible, and invalid sites can be proven to be completely accessible, is biased and completely devoid of realism about complex and creative, sometimes genius, web technology.

This issue has been discussed in detail at many conference calls, through long email threads, and in face-to-face meetings. Are people who are re-opening the issue really saying that they do not trust that those who were involved in those previous discussions are capable of coming to a reasonable and well-informed decision about this? That, too, is some form of prejudice or arrogance, in my opinion.

-Kerstin

Bob Regan wrote:

Hi Gez, 

Validity is not really my concern here, and I expect a compromise to be
possible. 

There was a metaphor used earlier about staying on the sidewalk being a
wise strategy for avoiding cars. The underlying assumption in this
metaphor is that the guy who built the road actually talked with the guy
that laid the sidewalk. It should be true that they work in recognition
of one another's efforts. The reality in the technology space is that
the various players in any given space do not coordinate. This is not
malicious. It is reality. 

I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby an author may deviate
from valid code for reasons specific to accessibility for the audience
defined in their own baseline. 
 

Cheers,
Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305


-----Original Message-----
From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:43 AM
To: Bob Regan
Cc: WCAG WG mailing list
Subject: Re: Validity

Hi Bob,

On 04/11/05, Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com> wrote:

This is an old debate that we have had in detail before in multiple
working groups.


I'm aware that it's an old debate, but it's still an issue without a
resolution; at least in WCAG 2.0. We need to come up with something
that we can get consensus on, which probably wouldn't be that
difficult if we could find some middle-ground. The people that believe
validity is important believe it with a passion, and those that don't
believe it's important believe it with an equal passion. Consequently,
the debates end up full of passion, which makes it difficult to focus
on the real issues as they get swamped with edge-cases.

How can we compromise? Are those against validity at level 1 also
against it level 2? Could we live with a watered-down version of
validity at level 1, and full validity at level 3? Could we live with
validity being removed completely from the guidelines, and addressed
in appropriate techniques? I think if we concentrate on these types of
questions, with someone who feels indifferent about validity as an
arbiter, we could make progress and reach our deadline with minimal
disruptions.

Best regards,

Gez


--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com