WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mar 8, 2006 10:00AM

> (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)

Absolutely. I don't think that we're far off here either, but I can't
look at the evidence today and say that valid code is _required_ for
accessibility, even if it is required for WCAG 1.0 P2 compliance.

> Andrew, When WCAG 2.0 surfaces as an actual "Official
> Guideline" or "Recommendation" (in what? 2010 <smile>?), then

Should we start a pool?

> 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

Generally I don't need to but there does need to be decision making on
the part of the developer to determine whether a particular technique is
beneficial, harmful, valid, cheap, expensive, etc. in order to make the
right decision for the scenario at hand.

> 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 if they fall from favor or are superceded by newer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

Standard constructs can also cease to be supported. No, I don't have a
good example on hand, but there is no reason that it can't happen...

> create a very real access problem for all users, not just
> those with special needs.

This is why testing is important, and keeping sites up to fate is also.


> 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

I can't take credit for all of the delay. This is a concern for Flash,
as you know. With Flash in a web page for example, you need to choose
between writing invalid code via javascript, writing static invalid
code, valid code that is incompatible with screen readers, valid code
that is incompatible with Mozilla, or writing valid code with an IE
hack. I don't care which you use as long as the users are able to
access the content. This is not a case of "ya but it works" but "hey -
this doesn't work!".

> 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.

That is a huge assumption and while it may be anecdotally supported, I
doubt that it is really statistically true. I'd be more willing to say
that those who take the time to validate their pages are more likely to
run a "Bobby" test, but not necessarily the manual tests. I wonder what
percentage of sites developed with valid code also use HTML headings and
explicit label associations - I bet it's less than you might hope.

AWK