[Accessibility_sig] Invalid documents (was heading discussion)

[Scott Plumlee]

>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:46:24 -0800
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat at adobe.com>
> Subject: Re: [Accessibility_sig] Accessibility_sig Digest, Vol 44,
>        Issue 8
> To: "kgroves at webaccessstrategies.com"
>        <kgroves at webaccessstrategies.com>,      Discussion list for web and
>        software accessibility issues   <accessibility_sig at knowbility.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <5076E68FCD2E91428C2479984A81E1147B21495644 at NAMBX01.corp.adobe.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> while graphical user agents are likely to still render a document well even
> if it is invalid, assistive technology can have serious issues on invalid
> documents ranging from a simple inability to relay information properly to,
> in worst cases, having the AT crash.
>
>
I push for validity because it gives a baseline to start from when checking
for accessibility, CSS rendering, javascript interaction, and anything
else.  I HOPE that if I make sure the HTML is valid, then I've taken that
variable out of the equation when I'm debugging any of the above items.
Especially with accessibility, where the AT depends on the browser and the
operating system.  It might not make a difference, but it gives me a little
more peace of mind that I'm developing something the behaves consistently
for a user.  I don't have any hard data to prove that, however.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://knowbility.org/pipermail/accessibility_sig_knowbility.org/attachments/20081231/b2f43878/attachment.html