- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:57:33 +0100
- To: Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>
- Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On 4 May 2007, at 16:51, Maurice Carey wrote: > > On 5/4/07 11:47 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > >> >> Accessibility is a fundamental requirement at W3C. >> >> One of the reasons I am happy to see HTML being developed here >> again (at last) >> is that it gives us access to the review of people with a lot of >> experience in >> practical deployment of accessibility, as well as a mechanism that >> clearly >> ensures this is taken into account. Not that I distrust Ian's >> management of >> issues in WHATWG, but my experience suggests that W3C groups get a >> better-informed accessibility review. >> >> Accessibility has to work in the real world. What does this mean? >> In 1998/9, >> many people said it was unrealistic to expect people to use the >> alt attribute, >> and therefore we should forget it. While experience shows there >> are stil >> plenty of people who don't care enough to get it right, showing >> that it is >> important and how to use it will lead to a lot more people making >> use of it >> and therefore improving the accessibility of the web. Perfection >> would be >> wonderful, but given a world where barriers appear all through a >> normal day, >> preventing people from participating in life as we understand it, >> improvements >> are great even when they are partial. >> >> This is a complex area, with a lot of competing requirements (what >> suits a >> blind engineer is almost diametrically opposed to what suits a >> dyslexic >> engineer, even before we broaden the application to real >> humans ;) ), so some >> creative thinking is often required before we determine a solution >> that >> satisfies what appear at first to be contradictory requirements. >> It has turned >> out, in many cases, that a good solution can be found. As always, >> [cue >> interjection from M Glazman ;) ] authoring tools of various kinds >> have a >> critical role to play here. Most people don't know much about >> accessibility, >> and while they are no more opposed to it than they are opposed to >> other people >> being able being able to hand-edit web applications, they are >> simply trying to >> put something online and if their tools don't solve the niggling >> little >> problems like interoperability and accessibility, they will just >> do as much as >> they have time for and leave it at that. >> >> Anyone who doesn't know what WAI does might like to think about >> how widely >> known and translated the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are >> as an >> indication of whether this stuff is actually important. Like any >> other >> specification, the application is far from perfect, but if you >> want to >> contribute to HTML you should either understand something about >> accessibility >> or realise that accessibility is one very important part of the >> modern web and >> make sure the group is getting review and input from people who do >> understand >> it, and taking that into account. >> >> </rant> >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> > > > Do we have representatives from the screen reader/text browser > developers in > the group? > I can't remember the name, but I am sure we do.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 15:58:02 UTC