W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:21:32 +0300
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-Id: <17249BD7-AEB3-457B-BA29-E7B57E814278@iki.fi>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Aug 25, 2009, at 08:24, Ian Hickson wrote:

> I don't really understand what problem we're trying to solve here. Why
> would we give authors using WYSIWYG tools a license to not care about
> making their pages accessible? That seems backwards.

It's not about giving authors using WYSIWYG tools a license not to  
care about making their pages accessible. It is about acknowledging  
that when there's an abstraction layer that hides HTML syntax from the  
author, the syntax error-based feedback loop to the author doesn't  
work and instead the feedback is deflected by the tool developer.

The problem being solved is removing the incentive not to conform to  
ATAG 2 in order to perform the deflection. (The tool vendor can't  
enforce WCAG 2 compliance of the tool users.)

The right place to for software to complain at users of WYSIWYG tools  
about lack of accessibility is the WYSIWYG tool complaining at the  
user. A validator is the right place to complain at authors who don't  
use WYSIWYG editor-like abstraction layers between them and HTML syntax.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:22:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC