- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:08:58 +1000 (EST)
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
We should not be ignoring things because they are AT problems - my authoring tools are most commonly vi, notepad, simpletext (all text editors) or a set of Macros in a non-HTML aware version of MS Word. This is deliberate - it enables me to write accessible code easily. The Guidelines are there for (among other groups) people like me, to learn how to do it properly. If I were using an accessible AT I wouldn't need to read most of the guidelines (in theory), and I would expect the ones I did need to read would be provided to me by the software I had paid good money for. UA problems are stock-in-trade for the guidelines - it is important that they point out what the problems are with current UA's (and older ones are still current in many cases) as part of the rationale for a guideline. The current debateabout dlinks and LONGDESCs is an example of where it is important to understand that UAs do not necessarily solve a problem as we would hope when we read the specification. Therefore, an author has to pick up the slack. (Ultimately, the buck stops with the authors as well as the browser manufacturers) Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 1998 20:29:23 UTC