- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:50:45 -0700
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Thursday 14 June 2001 08:31, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > The responsibility of the author is to do things "the right way", and there > are things that screen readers do handle properly. For example, using HTTP > redirects instead of http-equiv in a meta element. My contention was that HTTP redirects are "the right way", and that meta refresh redirects were introducing unnecessary obstacles to accessibility _given_ _currently_ _deployed_ _UAs._ If I'm not misunderstanding you, you just said something very similar. > But there are things over which the author has no control, such as whether > someone is using a browser that just doesn't work. I would love it (from a designer's perspective) if I could say "all users of NS4 go hang; you need to get a better browser". NS4 emphatically doesn't work, in its handling of all sorts of valid markup and style. But I can't ignore that a lot of people are still using it: many people are resistant to embracing the MS monopoly but are unaware of alternatives (Opera, iCab, Konqueror, etc.). And if I design pages that don't work in NS4, those pages aren't accessible, regardless of how many WCAG checkpoints they meet. > And WCAG 2 doesn't assume all "until user agents" > clauses have been met, but last time we discussed the topic there was an > agreement that things would either be phrased as requirements, or not. That's good. I never cared much for the "until user agents" clauses; they introduced too much ambiguity. -- Thanasis Kinias Vice President & Manager of Information Systems Optimal LLC Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 11:50:42 UTC