[wcag2] Remarks: Examples of Guideline 4.2

I propose to revise guideline 4.2 [1] examples. The first example states

'By documenting minimum user agent requirements, the store makes it possible
for people using particular technologies to determine whether they are going
to have trouble using the store or its checkout mechanism before they begin
shopping. [...]'

reminding of 'optimized for Internet Explorer 4.0 at 800x600 pixels'. That's
a bad habit and not really suitable (since it ain't very usable). And it
doesn't help the user, neither, since it does /not/ indicate any trouble.

Next, the second example says

'[...] to address the problem, the(y) created two versions of their content
and documented the requirements for each, making it easy for individual
locations to determine which version would work best for their
technologies.'

and CMIIW, but doesn't this one conflict with W3C efforts to (theoretically)
serve every user-agent and media with /one/ document? (And in fact, you
/can/ do this quite well yet.)

IMO, example 3 is wonderful.

-- Finally, I propose to think about two alternative examples instead (I'm
very sorry not having them at hand yet) or at least to illustrate guideline
4.2 without them. I hope this reaches consensus.


All the best,
 Jens.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technology-supports-access


-- 
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect (IxD)

http://meiert.com/

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 09:01:51 UTC