W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2017

Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:13:10 +0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <637393e9-ecda-1975-b3b3-1529d60afd78@splintered.co.uk>
On 26/01/2017 18:41, Gregg C Vanderheiden wrote:
> that is why we worded it the way we did.    For an INTRAnet - the
> Authors (company) need to make it work with their browsers- and if
> that means giving special browser to some - then that is on them.
>
> but for public sites - they need to make it work with the browsers
> that the public is expected to have — and this is the default or free
> browsers.   At least that was the decision of the WCAG 2.0 WG.

Here you say "default OR free". In the previous message, you said "the 
default were particularly important since there are many places where 
people are only allowed to use the default browsers" which led me to 
believe you meant it always MUST work in those default browsers too.

If "default OR free", I have no concerns. But if there IS an imperative 
that it MUST work if the user only has access to the default browser, 
and particularly if the assumption is they can't install extra 
extensions/make drastic changes to the settings since they're in public, 
then that will be problematic for certain things that I'm seeing 
proposed (for instance, it would be unlikely for a user on a public 
machine with only default browser to install their own custom 
stylesheet, or to rely on an extension to inject custom styles, as 
is/was being discussed in the LV side of some proposed SCs)

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 20:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 January 2017 20:14:10 UTC