Re: check/identify

William Loughborough wrote:
> 
> 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.

How about: 

 To ensure accessibility of content in supported markup languages, 
 authoring tools are expected to recognize the elements and attributes 
 that promote accessibility, or hinder accessibility when absent.

> 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?
> --
> Love.
>             ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> http://dicomp.pair.com

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 2 December 1999 17:06:24 UTC