- From: Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:18:35 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 2009-11-10 Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: [snip] >By the same token, we have reason to believe that authors will *not* >fix markup which is semantically dodgy, but looks right. Where >possible, however, they will patch it invisibly. (Have a look at the >various discussions of how to conform to WCAG for examples of this - I >don't have numbers, because they are *very* labour-intensive to >generate. You have to take my word that I am not making this up for >fun, or we need to figure out how to get the research done). +1 This is exactly the kind of thing that happens in the "real world". Website gets an accessibility audit (formal or otherwise). Is found wanting. Pressure is on the developer in charge of remediation to fix it as quickly and cheaply as is possible. Changing markup will require another round of browser rendering testing, but if something invisible could be applied that doesn't affect rendering... What do you think the developer under time and budget pressure will choose? Regards, -Steve -- Steve Axthelm steveax@pobox.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 17:19:32 UTC