Re: proposal for 7.3

Hi Gregory!

I agree with your intent, but I think we need to think about a better way to
explain it in order to make it reasonable to implement. So I suggest we
reword the checkpoint to say "ensure that all examples are triple-A compliant
to WCAG [P1]". There is still an argument for allowing simplified examples to
be built up, although I suggest that a single example might be built in
stages, just as the instructions for lego build on smaller pieces which are
useless in themselves.

If a developer really wants to demonstrate how to do some magic trick that
only works for mini-market browser 9.5 with speech input turned off and
haptic input set to hypersensitive, then to comply with WCAG they will have
to provide a complete accessible alternative, and doing that should be part
of natural design (and therefore included in the example).

Charles McCN

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

  aloha, charles!
  
  whilst, at first (quick) listen, i agreed with your rewording of 7.3 -- quote
  Clearly identify any missing accessibility features in each example. P1
  unquote, when i re-read it, the only thought that came to mind is: why the hell
  we can't just say quote Do NOT use inaccessible markup in examples unquote
  
  there are (and will continue to be, for as long as the web exists) innumerable
  web sites where one can go to learn how to use (or, rather, misuse)
  inaccessible and invalid HTML and other stupid stylistic tricks to achieve a
  perceived effect for a specific platform, graphics card, browser, etc. -- why
  should we tell developers quote it is ok if you teach them how to do something
  wrong, as long as you point out to them the potential problems blah blah blah
  unquote
  
  so, i vote against the proposal, and vote for keeping the original wording, and
  this is an issue for which i am willing to filibuster, if necessary... 
  allowing AU manufacturers to provide inaccessible and slash or invalid markup
  in examples is not only unconscionable, it's just plain counter-productive --
  not to mention counter-intuative....

Received on Monday, 16 August 1999 15:07:44 UTC