W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: why are we pursuing this idea? (was: Implementation Details request on Issue 204 Decision)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:56:35 -0700
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <F04D9884-A5C6-4ECF-BDBF-A96483F92171@apple.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>

On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Why do you think it's better for user agents not to expose such
>> content when such education efforts fail, as they normally do?"
>> I am not suggesting forbidding user agents from exposing anything, I
>> am suggesting promoting it as a useful method to expose rich content
>> is not a productive or worthwhile idea and in general we should be not
>> advocating it.
> The adopted spec text says authors SHOULD NOT use this technique for
> rich content, but user agents MAY expose it when they do. Would you
> call that "promoting"?

It actually says that authors SHOULD NOT use this technique for rich content if essential meaning would be lost by flattening. In other words, authors can use rich markup for progressive enhancement, to potentially give a better experience if browsers come to support it. But authors can't rely on it being there; they have to make descriptions that are usable even if flattened to plain text.

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 17:56:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:30 UTC