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

Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>

From: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:11:58 -0000
Message-ID: <00ea01c145d4$6bb21220$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@yahoo.com>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Matt May:
> From: "Jim Ley" <jim@e-media.co.uk>
> It's not in anyone's best interest for this group to
> say they really shouldn't do that because it's all been done before.

I read your suggestion such that it was perfectly fine to invent a
language regardless of if it had any User Agent Support as long as it
could be accessible, I don't see that that makes sense, and it should
only be where existing technologies do not already do the job (MathML is
an existing technology.).  A new language should only be invented if it
can be shown that there does not exist one that achieve it's aims (even
with minor modification - UA support is much more likely in this
situation).  Continued Re-invention is very popular amongst W3 groups it
would seem, it's not constructive though, and on accessibility, having
user agents that understand it is key to it being accessible.

> > The language doesn't hide anything, the (incompetent?) script authors
> > choose to hide it, there is a distinction in my mind at least.
> MM
> Not to me. It's a fault of the language if it's not designed to work
> assistive technologies. For its part, JavaScript (1.0) was barely
> at all.

In what way is javascript not designed to work with assistive
technologies, what specific areas are at flaw? Sweeping statements don't
help - I assume mainly you are discussin the User Agent Object Model
rather than the language, if so, should you not be addressing the
HTML/DOM working groups with some urgency on the issues?

> MM
> What JavaScript does is pretty basic compared to what CC/PP will do.
This is
> what I meant by rudimentary.

I see no UA support for CC/PP and Personally am not convinced of the
need, or the desirability of allowing content negotiation on such terms,
probably because I've seen the failure of existing content negotiation
based on User Agents.  However javascript detection is still probably
more reliable than CC/PP as that relies on accurate information from the
User Agents being given, something that's never done - indeed it's often
intentionally lied upon because of content-negotiation, but this is in
anycase not for this list.

> old MM
> > > It can also provide good usability gains: most search
> > > engines use it to focus on the search text input.
> JL
> > This is not a usability gain
> MM
> To most people, it is.

That's no answer to my detailed explanation of the problems with using
the technique.

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 11:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC