W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: compatibility

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:09:22 -0400
To: John Foliot - bytown internet <foliot@bytowninternet.com>, Robert Neff <robert.neff@uaccessit.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <009401c22cc1$9eb61ac0$19e03244@DAVIDPOEHLMAN>

there is so much rong with this logic that it scares me.  It seems that
the news papers have the right idea.  They don't tell you to get an
education in order to read them, they make their content available at
the lowest meaningfull level possible.  If I am not mistaken, it is
still possible to read a news paper if you have a third grade education.
Of course, that does not mean that you will be able to understand all of
it but vast numbers of people who are not sofisticated do read them.

I see accessibility nowhere in this message blelow and That is what this
list is all about.  I agree that the kind of matrix proposed initially
might be impossible to produce though.  I do urge us all though to
center on the user and not the "standards".  The standards are often
written in a vac uum of sorts and than accessibility if possible is laid
ontop of them if it fits.  This though is changing and the world needs
to wake up.  Actually, much of the world has woken up, it is the us that
needs to wake up and also the web standards project it seems.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot - bytown internet" <foliot@bytowninternet.com>
To: "Robert Neff" <robert.neff@uaccessit.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: compatibility



Robert,

If you are not already aware of the Web Standards Project (WaSP -
http://www.webstandards.org) you might want to give them a visit.  This
battle was started in 1998, and for the most part has already been won.
The
issue is not that the browser manufacturers aren't listening and moving
forward, but rather that users (in particular large institutions) refuse
to
get with the program and upgrade their baseline browsers.  NN4.x is more
than 5 years old now (NN4.0B1 - Dec. 1996), and the last build of
Netscape 4
(4.5 - subsequent versions simply addressed bugs) was released in 1998.

There needs to be a reasonible expectation that users will seek to
upgrade
and improve their browsers (especially given the cost factor <grin>).
And
so, code to the standards and not to the browsers!  The matrix you seek
would be almost impossible to compile, given the variety of browsers on
the
market, the different operating systems in use, not to mention
alternative
user agents such as cell phones, Web TV and PDA's - the different
combinations are almost limitless.

WaSP's current headlines include a piece on a company known as
37signals, a
web design outfit.  They include the following interesting piece of code
on
their web site:


<div class="oldbrowsers">
<strong>Please note:</strong> This site's design is only visible in a
graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is
accessible
to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed
please <a href="http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/" title="The Web
Standards Project's BROWSER UPGRADE initiative.">upgrade to a Web
standards
compliant browser</a>.
</div>

FWIW

JF


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Robert Neff
> Sent: July 15, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: compatibility
>
>
>
> I am referencing Greg's remarks.
>
> A negative connotation could be inferred by this. Yet we see this
> already but in another form and that is "works best with this browser
> and version" and I will not state the web sites and browsers.
>
> I would like to see a compliance matrix that would be a reference tool
> developers, managers and professionals could refer.  I would not be
> opposed to putting an accessibility statement that states "we have
> designed our site to meet the W3C and 508 requirements, however, here
is
> how your web browser or assistive device interprets the guidelines."
> Maybe interpret is a misleading word, however, maybe there is a more
> appropriate word, but I think the point is made.
>
> This is where we would need a matrix for everyone to view AND THIS
WOULD
> BE A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT THAT WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUES AND MAYBE SOME
> COMPANIES WOULD TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.
>
> Does the page authoring tools group have anything like this?
>
> Robert Neff
> robert.neff@uaccessit.com
> 214.213.1979
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 08:13:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:05 GMT