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

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:03:02 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010115195915.00b3d7a0@localhost>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Note that <Q> is not required. It is an example but it does not appear in 
the checklist. I agree that it is a bad example because it is not 
supported. Therefore, I propose that we add an Errata that changes the 
wording of this checkpoint to read,
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dt><a name="entry-9">9.</a> Correction to example text for checkpoint 3.7
<dd>Added: 15 January 2001
<dd>Type: Clarification
<dd>Refers to: Checkpoint 3.7
<dd>Description.  Checkpoint 3.7 should be reworded to remove the example 
for Q as:
3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects 
such as indentation. [Priority 2] For example, in HTML, use the BLOCKQUOTE 
element to markup quotations.
</blockquote>

At 07:13 PM 1/15/01 , Jason White wrote:


>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> > 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?
>
>Emacspeak can treat it appropriately if an aural CSS property is
>associated with it in a style sheet. Some braille translation packages
>have basic styling mechanisms which could also benefit from it.

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 19:58:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT