WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Creating Valid Code

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sep 8, 2011 8:18PM

Hi John,

> for example any document in HTML4 or
> XHTML1 that contains ARIA will not pass a mechanical validator, yet
> removing ARIA to meet validation requirements seems something of a
> backward step, don't you think?
As an organization, we are just now talking about ARIA. In fact I was
asked by a mid-level web guy asked me if this ARIA thing is any good.
So I have a few months to worry about that. Anyhow, I get your point.

I agree with you that validity doesn't quite measure accessibility. I
guess I am seeking if there is a time to throw the code and hit
restart. Another option is to re-educate.

--
Ryan E. Benson



On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM, John Foliot < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Ryan E. Benson wrote:
>>
>> I was asked to look at part of a site. Most of the pages had over 20
>> validation errors. While the developer hasn't been creating sites for
>> too long, my lead told me to essentially ignore them. He says
>> non-valid code is kind of the standard these days "in the real world."
>> I know a good amount of people on the list either work for large
>> organizations/companies, is this just how it is or should I be pushing
>> for valid code.  I would be fine with the errors if they were under
>> five or so, but 20 is little high for my blood.
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Code validation, in-and-of-itself, may have very little impact on true
> accessibility: I've seen web pages that passed all the technical
> validation requirements and still turn out a bit of an accessibility mess,
> and conversely I've seen pages that do not pass validation be highly
> useable and accessible. It can also depend on which DTD (or lack of in
> HTML5) you are validating against: for example any document in HTML4 or
> XHTML1 that contains ARIA will not pass a mechanical validator, yet
> removing ARIA to meet validation requirements seems something of a
> backward step, don't you think?
>
> As Birkir has suggested, the kinds of validation errors being presented
> are generally more important than a sum-total of errors, and like most
> other aspects of web accessibility it takes some reasoning to understand
> the impact of validation versus non-validation. By practice, I use
> validation reports today as something of my Canary in the Coal Mine - if
> there are a large number of validation errors then I am fairly confident
> that there will be accessibility issues as well, as it is usually
> symptomatic of a big problem. However if all the errors are being
> generated by, for example, un-escaped ampersands (&), then the real impact
> on accessibility is pretty much negligible today (thanks to browser error
> recovery).
>
> So I think that the answer you seek is somewhere in the middle of what you
> are thinking and what your boss might be suggesting.  Best suggestion is
> to examine the errors and see what type of errors are being generated, and
> then make your evaluation based upon that. Don't get caught in a numbers
> game, stay focused on real results and user-impacts. I challenge
> developers to strive for validation (as achieving it means being focused
> on attention to detail, which generally also means better accessibility -
> but not always), but when it comes to evaluating 'success', validation has
> a lower value in the greater picture: nice to have but not critical.
>
> HTH
>
> JF
> ===========================> John  Foliot
> Program Manager
> Stanford Online Accessibility Program
> http://soap.stanford.edu
> Stanford University
> Tel: 650-468-5785
>
> ---
> Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page
>
> ===========================>
>
>
>