Re: Prompts

I don't recall explicit discussion framed in those terms, although similar
issues come up from time to time (for example the idea of a priority 0 - make
tools that make it possible to create accessible websites - such as notepad,
emacs, etc).

I would argue that it is not appropriate, on the basis that it doesn't really
matter to the end user what product is used (and the accessibility of all
products potentialy matters to users), to provide a similar level of
"approval" for tools that did not achieve a similar level of accessibility.

Cheers

Charles

On Thu, 4 May 2000, Frederick J. Barnett wrote:
[snip]

       As the new guy here, I was wondering something. Was it ever discussed in 
  the group about using different guidelines based on what type of program was 
  being used? For instance, I would feel that a dedicated web authoring tool 
  (HTML or XML editor) should have stronger accessibility features than a 
  "general purpose" word processor et al that merely has a "save as HTML" 
  feature. Any one who is serious about the web sites the create or maintain will 
  almost certainly be using a dedicated web design program rather than a GP 
  program. And those are the people most likely to use accessibility options if 
  presented them in an alert or prompt that would come up when a image or 
  whatever is used. Someone using a GP program isn't going to want to have to 
  deal with such interruption when when typing a letter or such with pictures in 
  it. For them, a prompt when saving as HTML, or the blue squiggly line we keep 
  talking about, would suffice I feel.
       If this was discussed before, and rejected, I was wondering, why?

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 14:06:56 UTC