W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Flickr and alt

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:55:23 +0100
Message-ID: <48AA6E5B.5000605@splintered.co.uk>
To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
CC: wai-xtech@w3.org, public-html@w3.org

Gez Lemon wrote:

> That's a good point, but it would be tragic if conformance
> requirements were lowered to satisfy validators. Maybe the
> conversation should be based around conformance, rather than
> validation. Validators are easily fooled, and when they're the sole
> method of quality assurance, aiming to please validators is likely to
> result in a poorer experience - particularly from an accessibility
> viewpoint, as the nature of ensuring content is suitable for humans
> means that very little can be automated.

Oh, I'm all for making the distinction between valid and conformant 
myself, but I fear that for many authors and clients, the difference 
will be difficult to understand..."so the official validator tells me 
that the page is fine, but you still say I'm not conforming to HTML5?"

> Why is it so important that inaccessible content should be considered
> compliant? Why not allow these edge cases to be considered
> non-compliant, and have authoring tools encourage authors to author
> accessible content?

I think the crux of the argument is: should the tool warn the user that 
they're breaking the compliance aspect of HTML5 (even if their output is 
valid when run through a validator), or that they're breaking WCAG?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 06:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:25:22 UTC