Re: Question on <pre> and <code> - violation of 1.3.1?

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote:
>  Correct. It's a cooperative effort between content creators, spec
>  manufacturers, and browser writers - if we don't ALL cooperate we ALL
>  lose.
>
>  In this case the specification is there, the document authors has done
>  their job, now the AT writers must do theirs.

Precisely.

If a failure is quantified by the ability for user agents to support
and identify an underlying element, then there are much bigger issues
than just <code> that would introduce failures. <strong>, <em>,
<blockquote>, <cite>, and a host of others would most notably fail
because they are largely ignored and not identified distinctly from
surrounding text - though there's no reason why they couldn't be. The
reverse could equally be applied - why require associated labels for
adjacent form elements when screen readers already auto-associate
them. User agent support cannot be the whole measure of these
criterion.

Jared Smith
WebAIM