W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: proposed changes

From: Charles (Chuck) Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:41:51 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F046CA714@RED-MSG-55>
To: love26@gorge.net, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
<<
It might be nice to include (perhaps in 2.11?) the ability to test not
just the text rendering but any of the other proposed versions such as
"how does this look in lynx, pwwebspeak, homepage reader, IE, Opera,
Netscape?"  
>>

How in the world could that get acomplished?  FrontPage needs to figure out
how Opera interprets HTML and render that?  Think of all the different
versions of browsers.  Should Lynx 2.7 or 2.8 be used?

This is impactical.  If the author wants to know what their content looks in
another browser, should use that browser to verify.

<<
The proposed 2.4 is *extremely central* to this whole process because it is
where we have hit the most resistance ("interface bloat" excuse).
>>

Can you elaborate on this comment?  I'm not certain what you are refering
to.

Charles Oppermann
Program Manager, Accessibility and Disabilities Group, Microsoft Corporation
mailto:chuckop@microsoft.com  http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
"A computer on every desk and in every home, usable by everyone!"

-----Original Message-----
From: love26@gorge.net [mailto:love26@gorge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 6:47 AM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: re: proposed changes


It might be nice to include (perhaps in 2.11?) the ability to test not
just the text rendering but any of the other proposed versions such as
"how does this look in lynx, pwwebspeak, homepage reader, IE, Opera,
Netscape?"  

This has so much in common with ER that the co-ordinating group should
address the maintenance of this issue since the (rather slow) progress
of the UAs (they don't even implement CSS2! and we're looking to XML,
etc.) is most discouraging to people trying to use the author guidelines
within a text editor and how far behind that are the AU tools going to
be?  How can we encourage the tool designers to make it simple for tool
users to be made aware of how their output will look/sound on a TV, Palm
Pilot, Cell Phone, braille display, etc.?

The proposed 2.4 is *extremely central* to this whole process because it
is where we have hit the most resistance ("interface bloat" excuse).  I
would prefer the language to be a bit more forceful, "provide
mechanisms" somehow strikes me more passive than need be.  We won't
"require", etc. but something beyond what's here might be called for. 
It seems that this section and 2.10 could be combined.

In general in all pertinent cases emphasis might be warranted on all the
descriptors such as whether a table is a *real* table or just a lazy
formatting device.  
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 1999 21:41:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT