- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:09:14 -0800
- To: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
I've lost the original context, but the argument that linkrot will occur just because sighted authors will not actively see some portion of HTML is specious. Content management systems don't need eyes in order to check links. Maintenance robots don't need eyes in order to check links. And, perhaps most importantly, non-sighted users of the Web don't need eyes in order to test the accessibility of important websites. An organization truly concerned about Web accessibility, including the ones that build sites for information that is government-mandated to be accessible to the greatest extent possible, will have both automated and human procedures in place to make sure that is so (or will soon find themselves on the losing end of a class action lawsuit). Our job is to provide the means to make HTML accessible to the general public by those who have a will to make it so. Removing features that are used to improve accessibility, without providing a suitable alternative that covers the same use cases, is wrong. Providing new features that may be used to convey important information without also providing a mechanism to make that information accessible is wrong. Arguing that some people might use the feature ineffectively is no more sensible than arguing that we can't standardize the script element because many authors can't program correctly in javascript. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> Principal Scientist, Adobe Systems <http://adobe.com/enterprise>
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 02:09:43 UTC