- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:30:38 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... > ...and would help end-users almost zip, given what I explained in [1] as > was supported by [2]. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0153.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0158.html > > If you disagree with this, please support your arguments. So far you have > merely contradicted me without any attempt at explaining why you disagree. > > >> *Please* explain how would the following text NOT be an improvement on >> what is currently in the spec? (which is nothing) >> >> "Not all users are able to use pointing devices In order to make >> tooltips accessible without the use of a pointing device. User agents >> must also make it possible to display tooltips using the keyboard. >> Advice on how to provide conditional content (such as tooltips) >> accessibly is available in the <a>User Agent Accessibility >> Guidleines</a>" >> >> link points to - >> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-conditional-content: > > Well, first of all, it's not grammatically correct. I've no idea what most > of that is trying to say. Secondly, it's a link, which as I've already > explained would not be followed by most implementors. > ... When reading specs, I *do* follow links for stuff that's relevant, and I know lots of others that do as well. Please do not over-generalize. And, as I said before, the likelihood of a link being followed depends on how it is presented. The way links are presented in HTML5 clearly is suboptimal, because it usually leaves the reader guessing what *part* of the spec is referred to. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 13:31:15 UTC