Re: 24 August 2006 Agenda

On 23/08/06, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov> wrote:
> Please find attached my summary report on "title-attribute" issues.

It's a very thorough report, Bruce.

> Not represented in this sample are the number of people,
> probably in the majority, who think using the title attribute
> is a best practice.

True, which is quite concerning as the title attribute is for
supplementary information, and the HTML specification provides no
guidance on how and when it should be rendered. UAAG requires user
agents provide access to all content including the title attribute,
and it can be argued that user agents like Mozilla have got that right
- although it requires the user to expect there to be a title
attribute with no cue, and actively examine the element using a
sequence of keystrokes that is unreasonable to expect people to do as
a matter of course before interacting with hyperlinks or any interface
elements.

> It is reasonable to anticipate that UA (both browser and AT) support
> for title attribute will improve.

Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? I'm just curious why
you're sure, as there is no proper guidance on how it should be
exposed to the user, and your source from GW Micro appears to
contradict it.

> I understand from a WindowEyes beta tester that GW
> Micro has no plans to support exposing the title attribute
> on form elements.

I thought Windows Eyes exposed the title attribute anyway in the
absence of a proper label? Is it the supplementary rendering they're
refusing - ie, if there's a label, it won't provide a separate
mechanism to reveal the content of the title attribute?

> Can this be deferred to baseline?  That is, if WindowsEyes
> is in the baseline, then techniques relying on title attribute
> behavior would not be sufficient.

The baseline can only list technologies, not user agents.


Best regards,

Gez


-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com

Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 14:48:24 UTC