Edit comment LC-1446 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-874 Next: LC-910

Comment LC-1446: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: JackP <throwaway@thepickards.co.uk> on behalf of None; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Affiliation: None
Document: W2
Item Number: ensure-compat-parses
Part of Item:
Comment Type: technical
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Just a note that you asked for comments and from my own personal trawl of the archives, I found 19 separate comments related to validity/unambigous parsing. Of these, 18 of the comments desired returning to the \'validates\' criteria as used in WCAG 1 at either Level 1 or 2. That\'s almost 95% of the people making a comment wanting validity back.

(also see public posting on same:

http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200606/validity-those-taking-up-arms/

)

Proposed Change:
Re-include validity at level 2 as a strenghtening of SC 4.1.1.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] Discussed in the 29 March 2007 telecon: Resolution: close as proposed http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/03/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not accept}; Resolution: The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is not part of the specification. The working group must work within its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our #1 technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)