- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:23 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11557 --- Comment #21 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-01-13 23:02:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > Comment 11 suggests that it's acceptable for a site with only a few AT users to > not be accessible to those AT users, which seems counter to what I normally > hear from the accessibility community. I was assuming that comment 9 was only talking about relatively old AT, which would get fixed. In that case, even if some AT users can't use the content now, they would be able to if they switched to different AT or upgraded, which presumably they'd do within a few years. Spec requirements to account for these would be immediately obsolescent. This is not comparable to a site which is not accessible to AT users period. It's more like sites dropping support for IE6. If comment 9 was actually talking about a situation where some AT didn't assign the correct roles natively even in the latest version and wasn't going to change reasonably soon, that would be a serious issue with that AT's role implementation, and I'd question the reasonableness of trying to impose burdensome authoring requirements to work around a clearly deficient implementation. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 23:02:24 UTC