Re: Priority for Techniques Dealing with Foreign Language Markup

At 01:38 PM 11/17/98 -0600, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>We also considered a priority one except that there have been increasing
>complaints from people about sites that fail to make accessibility ratings
>but which were completely usable by everyone who went to try them.
>Declaring a site of 16,000 pages as being inaccessible when it is completely
>accessible except for the fact the pages do not have lang = en at the top of
>them, seemed to fall in this category.  Also, we have kept in mind that
>anytime we add another item to the list of priority ones we weaken all of
>the other priority ones.
>
>This was a tough call for us since we do see it as a serious usability
>problem and that is the reason for this long e-mail describing some of the
>thought process.
>
>Your thoughts either concurring or differing are invited.
>

How about adding something about an implicate language in the absence of
the Lang = ?? clause. If I am connected to an .es site, I would expect that
the site would be in Spanish not English so only English pages would NEED
to have the Lang clause.

You also missed a third reason for using the Lang clause - to allow the
Browser to select from multiple copies of the same data based on the
language (MIME MULT/ALTERNATE).

>Gregg
>For the Editors
>
>-- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Human Factors
>Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
>FAX 608/262-8848
>For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 17:26:20 UTC