W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Microsoft PowerPoint accessibility

From: Bart Simons <bart.simons@anysurfer.be>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:03:23 +0200
Message-ID: <5A74DFF1B0F544A687BEDCA301140653@PORTBARTS>
To: "W3C WAI ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Christophe et al,

>> At 21:27 15/08/2010, Wayne Dick wrote:
>>Don't worry if a particular screen reader can or cannot read it.  If
>>you meet the sufficient conditions and a screen reader can't read it
>>then the screen reader has a bug and you should report it.
> But if no screen reader supports the technique you're using, the technique 
> is not accessibility-supported.

Who is authorised to judge whether a technique is accessibility supported or 
not? Web designers are not specialised in A T support so they need someone 
to tell them which technique is guaranteed to work.

In my oppinion techniques that are not accessibility supported should not 
Let us take again H33: Supplementing link text with the title attribute
Under the "User Agent and Assistive Technology Support Notes" heading follow 
so many arguments claiming the technique is not accessibility supported that 
I think the technique should be (temporarily) deleted.

I understand it is there because it might be supported in the future, but 
who is monitoring this. Who can decide when a technique becomes enough 
accessibility supported to be used?

The A T market is not the most open one. Who knows how many people are using 
product a, b or c and which version of it. On what should claims about 
accessibility supportedness be based?

Bart Simons
AnySurfer - Quality mark for accessible websites in Belgium
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 14:03:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:41 UTC