W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Question...

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:07:45 +0200
To: "Simon Harper" <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>, "UAWG list" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.usx1e7kmwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:47:56 +0200, Simon Harper  
<simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi there, I was just wondering if we'd discussed this before, but could  
> a specialist browser (say voice only) get a UAAG validation; if there  
> was no provision for sighted users or AT?

It has been discussed in the distant past, and I think the answer is that  
in general it wouldn't, although there are generally ways that it could be  
made to conform. (Without provision for AT it's hard to claim  
accessibility or even justify trying to make such a claim).

cheers

> I'm thinking, an onboard audio UA in a car, say?
>
> Cheers
> Si.
>
> =======================
>
> Simon Harper
> University of Manchester (UK)
>
> Human Centred Web Lab: http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>
> My Site: http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/harper/
> My Diary (Web): http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/harper/ 
> phpicalendar/week.php
>
> My Diary (Subscribe): http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/diaries/harper/ 
> SimonHarper.ics
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 13:09:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:52:12 GMT