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

Re: @title's relation to accessibility

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <002c01c7efb9$e9bc04b0$0601a8c0@HANDS>
To: <public-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>

What can the html wg do to make browsing on bad browsers better?  If it is 
in the scope of work, I'd like to see this discussed and propposed.  Is 
there a way to help authors with this type of transform?  Can code prevent 
uas from doing bad things?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>
To: <public-html@w3.org>; <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: @title's relation to accessibility



[quoting fixed manually]

At 08:16 -0400 UTC, on 2007-09-04, David Poehlman wrote:

> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>> Some UAs could make settings much more user friendly though. (Then again,
>> there too it in the end is the end user's responsibility to pick the best
>> tool; execute their freedom.)
>
> Where is the fredom?  When you work for a company who will not allow you 
> to
> use anything but the most miserable ua in the world....

Then that company is the problem. Not the UA, not the HTML spec, not web
publishers.

Anyway, let's try to not get into an off topic debate about whether people
should then change jobs, etc. The point I'm tryingto make is whether such
problems are within the scope of this group. Should the HTML WG consider 
that
some employers require their employees to use broken tools, and if so, what
can the HTML WG do about that?


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 12:40:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC