- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:51:10 -0600
- To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> They are not questions of Web content and should not be in WCAG. Clearer? This is not entirely true. If the author uses a server side image map - the user agent is helpless in providing keyboard access (MouseKeys - is explicitly excluded as "keyboard access"). This is not HTML 4.01 specific. Many technologies may have elements that can be operated only with a mouse. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:42 PM To: WAI-GL Subject: RE: G 2.1 and L3SC1 are no different? > I think the question was 'what are the salient differences', not why am > I top p osting... Because you can't run your mail program? > The phrases are nearly identical but the statement of purpose talks to > the fina l result, content _being_ keyboard accessible, and the SC talks > to the action o f the author in _designing_ the content to, hopefully, > achieve that result. The content author knows nothing about the keyboards his or her readers use. > Joe's point, that the author cannot guarantee the final outcome, is why > the SC doesn't speak to outcome but design. They are not questions of Web content and should not be in WCAG. Clearer? -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 05:51:16 UTC