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

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:02:10 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree to go with this "until user agents" clause qualifying 
requirement/example/suggestion (whatever it is) for <Q> for WCAG 1.0.

As for WCAG 2.0, I suggest that absence of user agent support is another 
one of those external considerations (a.k.a. "considerations X") that are 
not accessibility per se, like security, intellectual property, or extreme 
difficulty.  So in WCAG 2.0, we on the one hand say that use of Q is needed 
at some priority level for accessibility, but on the other hand allow it to 
not be used because of this external consideration. This would be part of 
the conformance criteria for which Kynn is writing requirements.

Also, regarding the thread about 508 under this subject heading-- I suggest 
moving that discussion to Trace's sec508 email list [1].  I think it was my 
passing reference to 508 in my original email that started that thread and 
I'll be more careful in the future.


[1] http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/guest/listutil/SEC508

At 09:36 PM 1/15/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Hmmm, I don't think this does it. Either you use the markup (and Q is part of
>the markup) or you don't meet the checkpoint. If we want to have an erratum,
>it should be specific: "until user agents support the q element, do not use
>it". Which of course brings us to the thorny question (yet again) of how
>widely something needs to be supported.
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>   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
>   /--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>until 6 January 2001 at:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 

Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2001 10:02:05 UTC

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