- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:47:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6606
Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|NoReply |
Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED
Resolution|WONTFIX |LATER
--- Comment #26 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> 2010-05-12 16:47:02 ---
I'm closing this (and removing the NoReply keyword). I'm thinking of another
approach to the problem.
Additional points:
--- It's a contradiction to create a new user interface method for common use,
not explain it, and expect users to be responsible for its correct use or
nonuse.
--- It's likewise a contradiction for an HTML standard to hold site owners and
designers for how UAs reinterpret sites without notice to owners and designers
(other than notice that UAs can do what they want).
--- And it's a contradiction to require that users be expert users in order to
understand what's going on when new methods are introduced without explanation;
HTML and various other standards are meant to support experts and neophytes in
using the Internet in order to support Internet popularity.
--- A method to block Accelerators and the like should not be punitive, e.g.,
blocking Accelerators should leave the rest of the user's experience intact,
e.g., an entire menu should not be disabled just to disable the Accelerators in
that menu (assuming the rest of the menu is acceptable).
Thank you.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 16:47:04 UTC