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

Re: Evaluation results: Priorities

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:49:28 -0500
Message-ID: <36EE6F78.28F34D91@w3.org>
To: Chetz Colwell <c.g.colwell@herts.ac.uk>
CC: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Chetz Colwell wrote:
> CC::
> Maybe it's worth making these unknowns more explicit. Then authors may be
> less surprised if they are informed that elements / attributes are not
> supported by the browser they use, and will understand that this is not
> predictable.
> WC::
> >Where possible we have tried to say, "until user agents...."
> CC::
> Checkpoint 7.4 doesn't currently say this. What should authors do until
> user agents support the association of headers and cells?

Even when there is user agent support, it will still be
up to the author to mark up the relationships.Thus, I don't think
the checkpoint as worded should say "until".  

>  I seem to
> remember that there used to be a Technique of using <P> or <BR> in table
> cells to to make tables easier (if not accessible) for screen readers.
> Could this be recommended until user agents support the association of
> headers and cells? Otherwise, an author "must" use attributes that are not
> supported by either the main browsers or current screenreaders (I don't
> know about other special devices).

I will raise this as an issue with the WG.
> WC::
> >In the techniques we state
> >that certain elements or attributes are supported in HTML4, 3.2, 2.0 or
> >deprecated in HTML4, etc. If your participants did not find this
> >information or it was not presented in a way that made sense, then I think
> >our first step is to modify our current presentation of that information.
> CC::
> None of them were observed to use this information (if it was available in
> the version they used).  I think more links to this section would be
> useful, particularly in the section of the Introduction which indicates
> that not all elements / attributes are currently supported.

I will add something to this effect.
> WC::
> >Did any of the authors say why they removed an element or attribute once
> >they found it was not supported? Was it because they were frustrated that
> >they had "wasted time" implementing it and no one was going to use it? Or
> >were they afraid it might conflict with an older browser?
> CC::
> Particpants seemed to be concerned that they would have something 'unknown'
> in their page, which didn't work 'now', and they didn't know how a user
> might interact with, or whether it might break an older browser.
> WC::
> >If the answer is the second option, then we need to highlight that using
> >new features now won't hurt anything (except where noted, e.g. OBJECT).

I'll add a statement to this effect:

      In general, user agents ignore HTML attributes they
      don't support and they render the content of 
      unsuppored elements.

(I'm not sure why OBJECT "hurts". It was designed not to hurt, i.e.,
for its content to be rendered when designated objects cannot
be operated.)

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 1999 09:51:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:29 UTC