W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Fwd: WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.4

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:45:29 +0200
To: "Jon Gibbins (dotjay)" <dotjay@nov5th.net>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.sts1x3lzwxe0ny@pc099.qadoc.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:27:59 +0200, Jon Gibbins (dotjay)  
<dotjay@nov5th.net> wrote:

>
> Quoting David Poehlman (via Patrick H. Lauke):
>> [...] but if there is nothing in the blank, braille cannot be
>> put there by any software. [...]
>
> This is an interesting discussion.
>
> I'd still maintain that software could do more here. A title attribute
> or equivalent could be useful in providing extra info here, so could the
> software not check for such info?
>
> If such information such as David describes is useful, there must be a
> better way to provide that info that via placeholder text.

Yep. But the key point is that until software does do a better job, either  
authors do some extra work that *should* be done by the software, or users  
don't have access to the content :-(

It's the unpleasant gap between specs and reality, that a section of WCAG  
tried to bridge. Unfortunately a lot of the information on which the  
decisions were based are lost in the discussions from the late 90's,  
rather than being written down clearly somewhere. Doing it right wuld  
involve noting the cases that caused problems and tracking them...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 14:45:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:22 GMT