- 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