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

Re: Crawling ants?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:46:48 +0100
Message-Id: <a0501041ab6cab67eac89@[212.157.162.79]>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 7:37 AM -0800 3/6/01, William Loughborough wrote:
>Of course. That is not the function of the author, but of the user.
>So long as the user isn't somehow prevented from providing for 
>herself such a version, there should be no problem. The user's 
>browser should have a "don't bother me, I'm trying to concentrate" 
>button which can, while providing "banner liberation", still allow 
>"the sky is falling" messages to get through.

The user's browser -could- have such a thing, not -should-. :)  Especially
as it is very hard for a browser to make such a choice, and could, in fact,
lose essential accessibility information if it tries to remove "only
banner ads."  (All that such a thing would do is make banner people even
sneakier!)

But we agree on the main point:

>I think what I'm saying is that this (recommending *specifics* of 
>presentation) isn't the business of WCAG. Instead of "don't divert 
>attention" we must (rather convolutedly) say "don't preclude removal 
>of attention-diverting elements" - and that in techniques, not 
>checkpoints.

I agree with what you are saying here.

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Tel +1 949-567-7006
_________________________________________
ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
_________________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 10:52:23 GMT

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