- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:58 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 01/02/2022 12:28, Bristow, Alan wrote: > But I am disappointed that a poorly coded CMS, for example, may produce > swathes of clearly invalid HTML, and a carefully coded CMF or CMS that > produces squeaky clean perfect HTML, will be measured as equal in terms > of merit by the manager who just wants to know, did it pass or fail WCAG. WCAG is not a stick that you can beat developers with though. It needs to address actual real-world accessibility issues. If you want to make the case that valid HTML is "better" (in some handwavy vague "because well, it IS" way) then sure...but that's not what WCAG sets out to address. I'm reminded of my old days of WCAG 1.0 testing, and the amount of time wasted reporting on absolutely trivial issues like "you used & rather than &" that had literally *zero* impact on anything...and then trying to justify failures with hypothetical "yes, in this case, that's not actually a problem, but imagine if you had other validation errors that DID have an impact..." P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 13:03:12 UTC