- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:16:12 -0800
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 6:05 PM -0500 1/15/01, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >So if people follow this guideline then most people using visual >browsers miss the quotes. If people redundantly use Q and quotation >marks, then people using compliant browsers such as Amaya and >AOLPress get double quotes. Either way, bad news. I agree with Len, for the reasons he stated. The rest of this is just discussion. I believe this is a reason why "example" text such as that which produced this problem should be considered non-normative techniques instead of strict guidelines; if read this way, the absolute part is the guideline, before the priority notice, and the e.g. is just a suggestion. Even so, this isn't a good suggestion and this illustrates a point in WCAG 1.0 where the difference between guideline and example is blurred. Many people would read that requirement as "use <Q> even though it introduces problems for most people". Question: Has it -ever- been proven in practice that use of <Q> increases accessibility for people with disabilities? Are there current assistive technologies which recognize and use the <Q> tag in a meaningful way? --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 18:25:50 UTC