RE: Validation as test for basic accessibility

Bruce,

I really think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. I understand
your motivation, but there is not, nor will there ever be, a binary test for
accessibility in the same way there is for validation.  You and I have
personally had this conversation several times before.

Humor  me for one minute: what if we use "grammar" as being analogous to
accessibility. I could show you a perfectly grammatical essay that makes
absolutely no sense at all. So, the fact that it validates using a grammar
checker has little importance when the essay is unintelligible.

dc

-------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Clark
David's Access Page
16 Harcourt Street, #2I, Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-859-3069
Email: david@davidsaccess.com  Web: http://www.davidsaccess.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Bruce Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 8:24 AM
To: Kynn Bartlett
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Validation as test for basic accessibility

Kynn,

I am not trying to argue that validity == accessible.

I am guessing that, in actual practice, any author or organization which
bothers to routinely publish only valid code is also publishing accessible
code -- even if they are not making a point to do the latter!

You have provided very succinct proof that valid code can have quite
significant accessibility problems, I don't debate that argument!  What I
question is if these theoretic potential problems arise on live sites.  Is
anyone actually posting code fragments of the type you cite in finished and
valid pages?

My point is that we might get more mileage promoting validity than
accessibility.  We would still be working to achieve the goal of universal
design!  There are simple binary tests for validity.  This is very important
for amateur authors and less-than-technically minded bureaucrats who are
charged with enforcing policies.  Obstinate authors have a hard time arguing
against the merits of validity, even as they doubt the need for
accessibility.  Once someone has acknowledged the importance of writing
platform-independent standards-compliant code, making the pitch to include
accessibility accommodations is an easy sell.

I don't think we should give up advocating for accessibility.  I do wonder
if our arsenal includes powerful weapons that we are not taking proper
advantage of.

Please cite an actual working URL where the pages are valid, but violate
Priority 1 checkpoints of the WCAG.

-- Bruce

> -----Original Message-----
>
> I think I am missing your point.  What is the point you're trying
> to make or prove?
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
> President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
> AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 09:03:40 UTC