Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility

Dearest Kynn,

You are missing my point!

You are quite correct that there is no causal relationship between valid HTML 4
and a documents status as being accessible.  I am sure that you would agree
though that the correlation between the two is higher than mere chance would
dictate.  I am not, however, interested in academic exercises, sample code
fragments, nor pages that are composed just to prove that I am wrong.

I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about this, I am taking a bit of
a gamble.  If my assertion is false, it should be easy to disprove by providing
an example!  Please indulge me.  I ask again, please cite a specific URL (or
two) where the code IS valid, yet one or more Priority 1 WCAG checkpoints have
been violated?  The higher profile, the better.

-- Bruce

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> > I have made the assertion before that:  If a page validates, odds are that
> > it is accessible!  In light of recent discussions, I think that this point
> > warrants further promotion.  Before that though, it should be investigate
> > more.  To this end, I challenge members of this list to do a little
> > hunting...
>
> I think your assertion is false.  Validation is a good first step
> towards accessibility, but it's still just one step, and it's not
> the ONLY first step. either.
>
> > Can anyone cite a URL for a live site that formally validates as HTML 4 but
> > does NOT meet the Priority 1 checkpoints of the WCAG?
>
> BTW, note that valid HTML is a priority 2 checkpoint.
>
> What follows is a list, based on the HTML Writers Guild's accessibility
> policy's descriptions, of how you can break priority 1 checkpoints
> using valid HTML 4.
>

Good examples of valid HTML violating WCAG checkpoints [snipped].  Hey Kynn, I
was sleeping in class.  Were any of those P1s?

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 20:44:38 UTC