W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: CSS Accessibility Analyzer from Michael Cooper

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:56:05 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183AA93@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

One point of clarification: if you have to use a screen reader and you
use Windows, then you pretty much have to use Internet Explorer.  This
is not because of any inherent superiority in IE, but because none of
the screen readers support Netscape Navigator, Mozilla, Opera, or even
Lynx.  At least this was true about a year ago when I queried Freedom
Scientific, GW-Micro, and Dolphin.  Whether or not that's as it *should*
be isn't the point-- there *should* be more  choice. But there isn't.

"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Subject: RE: CSS Accessibility Analyzer from Michael Cooper

> So we could create a
> technique that says, in effect, "If your target browser includes IE, 
> the author must use relative font sizes.

"Must"? *"Must"*?!

Just give us an alternate stylesheet and an accessible way to select it.
Or ask people to grow up and use a better browser. Newsflash: Even if
you must or simply wish to use Windows, you have a wide range of
improved browsers at your disposal.

There *is* no public Web page for which IE *on Windows* (always make
clarfication) is not a "target." This is a really genteel and
nicely-polished way of keeping the same broken WCAG 1.0 requirement.

> If your target browser is only Opera,
> the author can use absolute sizes and still be assured that the page 
> will be WCAG-compliant for the user."

Oh, now who the hell targets for *only* Opera? Some authors customize
for MOSe browsers (Mozilla/Opera/Safari Enhancement,
<http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2003/06/25/mose/>), but I have simply
never heard of anyone writing an entire site only for Opera. There are a
few features people put in that only Opera gets right, but people do
that with Safari, too. (Like me.)

WCAG WG continues to pretend that the concept of progressive enhancement
does not exist and is not already being followed by designers. I would
suggest Googling it; I have a large folder of bookmarks on that topic I
can wrangle later.

> It is of course the author's responsibility to
> be realistic about the browsers used by their audience and not try to 
> use this browser profiling as a way to wriggle out of the techniques, 
> but a

WCAG WG is telling authors to be realistic? We'll start when you start.

> and the techniques are easily updated if we become aware of a browser 
> with its own issues.

Easily updated? You people can't get past the issue of abbreviations and


  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 10:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC