In the introductory paragraphs to Guideline 4: "To ensure accessibility,
authoring tools must be designed so that they can automatically identify
inaccessible markup" might be the crux of the matter we've been
contending over. If it is impossible (at this time) to do this then we
must change this language. Checkpoint 4.1 is clearly based on the
assumption that such an identification of inaccessible markup is
possible and frankly I doubt this is the case. The fact that the Note:
to 4.1 acknowledges this makes it IMHO imperative that the intro to this
guideline is the proper place to make the point made in the note. I
strongly disagree with the notion that what can/cannot be automatically
identified should be listed anywhere in the Guideline Document. 

This same deplorable state of affairs may occur in other
Guidelines/Checkpoints because we were a bit cavalier in our use of such
phraseology as "check for" and other actions to take in regard to
inaccessible markup. 

If the "minimum" is alerting the author to accessibility problems then I
still feel that a copy of WCAG furnished with a text editor can qualify
at some level and with proper instruction in the design of extensions to
the tool's capabilities with macros it might even proceed to triple-A!

How much would Raman's emacspeak need to be modified to qualify?

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 1999 17:23:47 UTC