- From: Robert A. Rosenberg <bob.rosenberg@digitscorp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:17:27 -0500
- To: <po@trace.wisc.edu>, "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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