W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

RE: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened [was Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]

From: Evans, Donald <Donald.Evans@corp.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <1D65257B9F22C84F89F812FB1C24CA8D0208C4D3@EXCHNVA02.ad.office.aol.com>
To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Gijs Kruitbosch" <gijskruitbosch@gmail.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Well said Jon....

-----Original Message-----
From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jon Gunderson
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:42 AM
To: James Graham; Gijs Kruitbosch
Cc: 'HTML WG'; wai-xtech@w3.org; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened
[was Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]


I think one problem with the arguments on this thread is that people
think that developers will converge on one web development technology.
It is clear that web is becoming much more diversified in the types of
technologies that will be used by developers.  For example, look at how
much time developers have to spend time supporting the differences
between IE and W3C event models.  We need "solutions", not a "solution"
to accessibility problems.  Even if HTML5 is implemented developers will
come up with new widgets based on html, css and javascripting or ignore
the use of html5 it all together to develop their web applications.

It seems to me the question is not either/or but what are the solution
available to developers.

Jon






---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:23:19 +0200
>From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>  
>Subject: Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened
[was   Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]  
>To: Gijs Kruitbosch <gijskruitbosch@gmail.com>
>Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org,
w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>
>
>Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>>  As Aaron already said, everyone agrees it would be great if we got 
>> authors "accessibility for free", but this is only possible if the 
>> functionality of these accessible elements is constrained. Authors 
>> will always move beyond the boundaries of such constraints, where 
>> accessibility isn't for free. They'll want a circular progressbar, or

>> an animated SVG icon while the <video> is loading, or there'll be
this 
>> one bug in this one large-amount-of-marketshare-browser which stops 
>> them from using the builtin element, or...
>I believe that XBL provides the long-term solution to this problem. An 
>author who wants a circular progress bar puts a <progress> element in 
>the source and uses XBL to create a custom widget that works in exactly

>the way they want. This provides the needed semantics to ATs yet allows

>authors to customize the rendering however they like.
>
>
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services (CITES)
and 
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology (DRES)

WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 14:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT