- From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:03:47 +1100
- To: public-indie-ui@w3.org
James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: > Assistive technology vendors are not beholden to W3C specifications (and > most AT vendors are notoriously uninvolved in the standardization process), > so exposing this information when it's absolutely necessary, (and only with > user content), is one attempt to reduce the unreliability of AT interfaces > on the Web. At a Web accessibility conference last week, a content author mentioned this to me as a highly desired feature due to bugs and limitations (often version-specific) in various screen readers. I am concerned however that the information is open to misuse: content authors may start designing for the "most popular" ATs instead of writing according to spec. They can also ascertain which ATs are "most popular" for their particular content by gathering data, which is not possible now, since the name/version of the AT are not revealed. Thus I have decidedly mixed feelings about this proposal and, frankly, I'm not sure whether the practical benefits of being able to work around certain bugs/differences outweigh the opportunity to "design for the UA and AT implementation" instead of designing to standards.
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 02:04:14 UTC