E-mail List Archives

Re: Well formed verses Valid code

for

From: Loretta Guarino Reid
Date: Feb 26, 2007 3:40PM


Hi, John,

I must admit, I am surprised to see your strict call for validity
within a week of seeing your ardent defence of the (mis)use of the
title attribute of the abbr element for Microformat data.

Loretta

On 2/26/07, John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > I have yet to see an issue where
> > the code is so mangled that it impacts the way assistive technologies
> > render the content but that doesn't affect the visual rendering for
> > sighted users. I agree that valid code should be a policy, just not
> > an accessibility policy.
> >
> > AWK
> >
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1. Universal Accessibility should be (is!) about more than just adaptive
> technologies (Past, Present or Future) - I always thought the goal was that
> our content would render for *all* technologies - we're not building cars
> for the information highway, we're supplying the fuel. You can drive any
> vehicle you want, but the fuel I dispense will always be "pure" (valid).
> Valid code, as Norman Robinson pointed out, returns the responsibility to
> the user agents to process the information correctly to the end user - and
> this includes but is not limited to Adaptive Technology (which can assist
> users who do not fall into the "sighted" or "not-sighted" category). I've
> seen code that rendered fine on screen, that read fine to screen readers,
> but was functionally "broken" simply due to invalid code (I'm thinking of
> some .net crap that only works in IE browsers - I have no current or
> specific examples). If we (or at least I) keep talking about Universal
> Accessibility, but continually return back to Adaptive Technology "quirks"
> (or lack of), it somehow dilutes the message to me. It's almost a reverse
> discrimination.
>
> 2. Accessibility should be part of "The Policy" (full stop). That same
> policy should also include requirements for valid code, and can include
> other requirements as well - I spent a fair bit of time working within the
> Canadian Government's Common Look and Feel policy, which included
> accessibility, but spoke to much more, including the fact that Canada is an
> officially bilingual country (along with all that this entails), and other
> related items (email auto-responders for example - their usage, structure,
> etc.). I am troubled that we again want to marginalize "accessibility" and
> speak about specifics regarding Adaptive Technology - yet at the same time
> we preach that Universal Accessibility is foundational, and not something
> that you bolt on at the end of the day.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> JF
>
>
>