W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:16:12 -0800
Message-Id: <a05010406b689340cb8ff@[]>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 6:05 PM -0500 1/15/01, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>So if people follow this guideline then most people using visual 
>browsers miss the quotes.  If people redundantly use Q and quotation 
>marks, then people using compliant browsers such as Amaya and 
>AOLPress get double quotes.  Either way, bad news.

I agree with Len, for the reasons he stated.  The rest of this is
just discussion.

I believe this is a reason why "example" text such as that which
produced this problem should be considered non-normative techniques
instead of strict guidelines; if read this way, the absolute part
is the guideline, before the priority notice, and the e.g. is just
a suggestion.  Even so, this isn't a good suggestion and this
illustrates a point in WCAG 1.0 where the difference between
guideline and example is blurred.  Many people would read that
requirement as "use <Q> even though it introduces problems for
most people".

Question:  Has it -ever- been proven in practice that use of <Q>
increases accessibility for people with disabilities?  Are there
current assistive technologies which recognize and use the <Q>
tag in a meaningful way?

Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 18:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC