- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:46:48 +0100
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 7:37 AM -0800 3/6/01, William Loughborough wrote: >Of course. That is not the function of the author, but of the user. >So long as the user isn't somehow prevented from providing for >herself such a version, there should be no problem. The user's >browser should have a "don't bother me, I'm trying to concentrate" >button which can, while providing "banner liberation", still allow >"the sky is falling" messages to get through. The user's browser -could- have such a thing, not -should-. :) Especially as it is very hard for a browser to make such a choice, and could, in fact, lose essential accessibility information if it tries to remove "only banner ads." (All that such a thing would do is make banner people even sneakier!) But we agree on the main point: >I think what I'm saying is that this (recommending *specifics* of >presentation) isn't the business of WCAG. Instead of "don't divert >attention" we must (rather convolutedly) say "don't preclude removal >of attention-diverting elements" - and that in techniques, not >checkpoints. I agree with what you are saying here. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Tel +1 949-567-7006 _________________________________________ ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. _________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 10:52:23 UTC