WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Code Validation (was RE: spacing -  versus clear images)

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mar 8, 2006 7:30AM

Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> This is recognized in WCAG 2.0, and there is no demand for valid
> code, but rather that code can be "unambiguously parsed".

(For the Record to casual observers, Andrew and I have conversed many
times, and we are generally on the same side most of the time)

Andrew, When WCAG 2.0 surfaces as an actual "Official Guideline" or
"Recommendation" (in what? 2010 <smile>?), then that may indeed be the
position. However, as it stands right now, and for developers outside
of the US, the *requirement* for valid code remains in WCAG 1, which for
many, *is* the Standard (rightly or wrongly).
>
> We're talking about accessibility first and foremost. Standards
> based development is a complementary topic, but doesn't fully overlap
> with accessibility.

True, but we are also, in a very broad term, talking about technology as
well. How can you justify "hacks" or equivalent that "work" now, but
may not work later? This is a bad development position at any time, in
any technology, especially as it scales out to larger and larger
initiatives. Developing to Standards ensures that your content "works"
now and into the future, as it is based upon published Standards. By
their nature, Standards remain in effect, even if they fall from favor
or are superceded by newer technologies in the future. Non-Standard
constructs, on the other hand, may simply cease to be supported. This
can create a very real access problem for all users, not just those with
special needs.

>
> That's not my read on WCAG 2.0...

Right, and it appears to this humble observer that this exact type of
debate is precisely why we are still waiting on WCAG 2.0; the gap
between Standards advocates and the "ya but it works" proponents. Many
complain that WCAG 2.0 is long on theory, and still very short on
measurable outcomes. There is a large segment out there that requires
precise, measurable, predictable outcomes for verification and
validation (even though I personally agree that this is but a portion of
the total accessibility picture). Ensuring valid code is a simple
checkpoint to include - it's right or it's wrong. Authoring to standards
does not automatically make a site accessible, but I posit that if the
developer(s) have taken the time to ensure that their source code meets
validation requirements, that they have also taken a reasonable amount
of time to ensure other "accessibility" requirements have been met,
addressed, or at least considered.

JF
--
John Foliot <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053