At 16:53 5/09/2008, Tina Holmboe wrote: >On 5 Sep, Christophe Strobbe wrote: > > >> > Is the use of <code> in this fashion a failure? > >> > >> Surely the use of the semantically significant element "CODE" is more > >> than enough to satisfy the requirements? > > > > The litmus test is support by AT; being semantic is not > sufficient in itself. > > This falls squarely into the realm of the AT. The element is the > indication it SHOULD use - if it does not, it requires repair, not > markup hacks. > > The ball should be firmly kicked back to those who creates UAs which > fail to take advantage of the semantic interpretation that is there. Sure, but accessibility is not a theoretical exercise based on "should". For example, finding an accessible image replacement technique wasn't just a matter of reading specs but involved a lot of testing. Best regards, Christophe > I surely hope no-one is about to say "We need to write our documents > using certain words so that ATs can present the information in a way > that the user can understand", for if so they've just argued HTML and > XHTML out of existence. > >-- > - Tina Holmboe siteSifter Greytower Technologies > http://www.sitesifter.co.uk http://www.greytower.net > Website Quality and Accessibility Testing -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htmReceived on Friday, 5 September 2008 15:09:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 02:51:42 GMT