- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:05:11 -0500
- To: love26@gorge.net
- CC: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
William Loughborough wrote: > > In the introductory paragraphs to Guideline 4: "To ensure accessibility, > authoring tools must be designed so that they can automatically identify > inaccessible markup" might be the crux of the matter we've been > contending over. If it is impossible (at this time) to do this then we > must change this language. How about: To ensure accessibility of content in supported markup languages, authoring tools are expected to recognize the elements and attributes that promote accessibility, or hinder accessibility when absent. > Checkpoint 4.1 is clearly based on the > assumption that such an identification of inaccessible markup is > possible and frankly I doubt this is the case. The fact that the Note: > to 4.1 acknowledges this makes it IMHO imperative that the intro to this > guideline is the proper place to make the point made in the note. I > strongly disagree with the notion that what can/cannot be automatically > identified should be listed anywhere in the Guideline Document. > > This same deplorable state of affairs may occur in other > Guidelines/Checkpoints because we were a bit cavalier in our use of such > phraseology as "check for" and other actions to take in regard to > inaccessible markup. > > If the "minimum" is alerting the author to accessibility problems then I > still feel that a copy of WCAG furnished with a text editor can qualify > at some level and with proper instruction in the design of extensions to > the tool's capabilities with macros it might even proceed to triple-A! > > How much would Raman's emacspeak need to be modified to qualify? > -- > Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > http://dicomp.pair.com -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 2 December 1999 17:06:24 UTC