- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:32:46 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10448 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #4 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-07 08:32:45 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Half of this proposal still makes no sense. Links as progress bars? Buttons as scrollbars? Image map areas as range controls? Heck, even the link as button thing makes no sense to me. If we want a button-like UI to look like a link for visual users, why would we then go out of our way to turn them back into buttons for AT users? Won't that just confuse users when tech support people say "now click the link" and the AT says it's a button? I really don't understand the motivation here. How do any of these suggestions improve accessibility? See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0392.html -- 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 Tuesday, 7 September 2010 08:32:50 UTC