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 
exist.
Let us take again H33: Supplementing link text with the title attribute
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H33
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?

Regards
Bart Simons
-- 
AnySurfer - Quality mark for accessible websites in Belgium
http://www.anysurfer.be
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 14:03:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:34 GMT