W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Note to listowners

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:08:29 -0400
Message-ID: <004501c41ce4$7cab0340$6401a8c0@handsontech>
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <lists@zstudio.co.uk>
Cc: <sdale@stevendale.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

It is the experts who have learned to use a good deal of the at so they 
produce the guidelines or at least have a good deal of imput into them.  My 
statement about it being necessary to learn the at and not just use it and 
that most people cannot nor should they learn to and use it all because it 
has to be learned and used in ways that most likely cannot be done by 
someone who doesn't need it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Dale" <sdale@stevendale.com>
To: <lists@zstudio.co.uk>
Cc: <sdale@stevendale.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Note to listowners



Ian Anderson said:
>
>> Is it too much to for people on here to understand why they are here?
>> If it is to promote the latest technology then there certainly are
>> many other lists to be on.  If it is to promote accessibility then you
>> HAVE to work for what is out there being used.
>
> I think everyone knows that, but it is a complex issue. The point is
> that we were talking about the undesirable behaviour of ONE user agent,
> and it's true that a potential solution is to use another UA if you
> don't like the behaviour of this one. In practice, that's tricky because
> the other UAs have other weaknesses. This isn't fair, but it's the way
> it is. I agree with you: people use IE for good reasons, despite its
> appalling shortcomings, and the approach we use has to consider the
> reality of the situation. Doesn't mean Mr Clark deserved a barrage of
> rotten tomatoes for challenging the status quo, though.
I have made my point on this elsewhere.


>
> I don't have an answer to it all, but I do know that there's something
> wrong with the conventional guidance on the issue of text sizes.
>
Probably,  and I believe text size is just a drop in a bucket for low
vision.  You have to consider tracking and line spacing, contrast of
colors, "whitespace" and breaking up long paragraghs etc.

>> If you wonder why WCAG is not getting
>> anything more than lipservice from businesses, then re-read the thread
>> on skip navigation.  It went in a complete 360 degree circle in 3
>> days!
>
> And your point is what? A lot of accessibility issues don't have clear
> resolutions, and the point of this forum is surely to consider the
> different angles of an issue.
>
My point is I was told Skip links were NOT the way to go by one list
member,  so I asked how do you get around using a switch,  and was told by
another that you should use Heading navigation upon which I asked where do
I get Heading navigation to work on eak IE.  This prompted yet another
message from another user to USE SKIP LINKS..... HMMMMMMM
My point is that neither are bad, dont poo poo one particular way because
a brand new UA has header navigation.

>> AND I STILL CANT GET THIS OUT OF MY HEAD.....
>> from a member of the WAI IG LISTSERV:
>> > I have said this before on this list and I will say it again here in
>> this  context.  First, there are quite a variety of at out there and
>> asking people  to test them by learning and using them is considered
>> by many to be way too  much.
>
> This is nothing less than the simple unadorned truth. This is why the
> world needs WCAG and overpaid accessibility consultants like me... thank
> goodness.
Who can you be an expert if you havent learned how to use the device that
you are supposedly an expert on.  Are you just an overpaid jack of all
trades master of none?  How is your client satisfaction record?  I mean
the clients who USE your solution, not the company who you helped with the
website.  [forced disclaimer based on hurt feelings of others on here] You
meaning the general AT Accessibility expert and noone in particular.

-Steve
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:32 UTC