- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:43:15 +0100 (CET)
- To: rcorominas@technosite.es, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Even if it has been WCAG WG practice so far to class techniques with future potential but no or weak current accessibility support as 'advisory', I think advisory is a misnomer. Under this heading, a developer is likely to look for techniques that, while not ensuring that a particular SC is met, will still improve accessibility today, if marginally. Would an advisory figcaption technique then suggest figure / figcaption as a coding option that must have alt as a fallback? This may lead to redundancy / verbosity in some situations. Joshue O Connor schrieb am 13.01.2014 21:44: > Ramón Corominas wrote: >> The problem with sufficient techniques that have no accessibility >> support is that developers rely on them anyway, > > Generally techniques that have little to no support would be classed as > 'advisory' - with this one - as it is likely one of the new wave of > sufficient techniques we need to ensure that the samples we give are as > robust as possible, or indeed as likely to be very soon. > > Technologies always change, so we need to try to future proof our > techniques - as well as ensuring they work. > > A balancing act I know. > > Josh > > -- Detlev Fischer testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84 Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3 Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 http://www.testkreis.de Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 08:43:40 UTC