W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Question about access to ALL content - UAAG 2.1 P1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:42:30 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003251539540.14777-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think that it is accesible - I think you are understimating the
difficulty many people have in understanding a arkup language - both those
with cognitive disabilities and many others. And in any case the solution
will only really work for relatively simple markup languages - although it is
possible to learn postscript or RF as well as HTML there are not many people
who do it. Any reasonably complex XML language can become incomprehensible
fairly quickly, and users should not be expected to read the language
(otherwise why bother with a user agent that interprets it in the first
place).

Charles McCN

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  > I don't think that providing a source view solves the problem. It requires
  > the user to understand the markup language being used, which is not
  > necessarily the case, and has thus far been explicitly excluded as a
  > requirement on the user.
  
  I think it minimally satisfies the requirement of making content
  available. We include no specifics about how content must be rendered
  (e.g., that alt content for an image be made available inline, in the
  same geometric area as an image, a click away from the image, in
  a tool tip, etc.). I wouldn't expect a user to have to read through
  the encoding of a raster graphic. However, I think that providing
  text in a view, even if it's surrounded by markup tags, allows users
  access to that information and thus minimally satisfies the
  requirement of making (text) content available. I agree that
  not all attribute values are useful, but since we don't specify
  that only those for humans need to be available to the user (since
  it may not be specified clearly in the markup language which are
  for humans and which are machines), I think it's "safest" to ensure
  that they are all available.
[snip]
Received on Saturday, 25 March 2000 15:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:52 GMT