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

Re: head@profile: another dropped attribute

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:35:30 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20090205103230.03063308@mail.muzmo.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>,Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>,Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

At 01:19 PM 2/5/2009 +0000, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:

>I think there is always a place for "humble tags that do only one thing",
>and I would suspect that the vast majority of markup consists primarily
>of such tags.  But when speaking of tags such as <font>, it is important
>(IMHO) to appreciate that not only do they do only one thing, they do
>that thing only for one target audience : those who have normal visual
>abilities, and who therefore view web content visually.  But what of
>those who do not have such abilities : the blind, and partially sighted ?
>Of what use to them is a stretch of text surrounded by <font> tags ?
>One thing on which I though we were all agreed is that the web must,
>first and foremost, be accessible (to all), and that the use of
>purely visual styling treats those lacking normal visual abilities
>as second-class citizens.

Frankly, your example makes us all second-class citizens, and does not harm
the visually-impaired any more than the sighted. That is, knowledge that
a span of text is in a different color than the rest of the text only tells me
that that text is in a different color. Unless there is a key, I don't know 
anything
more about that colored text than the next guy -- sighted or not. No 
discrimination.
No harm, no foul.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 15:57:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT