- From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:06:03 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Bruce,
Even if we can't make this fail now, I am uncomfortable with this being the
technique we rely on. Search engine algorithms can change. So I don't want
my conformance claim to be based on something I can't control that might
turn up a different result in the future.
Andi
"Bailey Bruce"
<Bailey@Access-Bo
ard.gov> To
Sent by: "Gregg Vanderheiden"
w3c-wai-gl-reques <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
t@w3.org cc
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject
05/12/2007 09:10 RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up
AM
> The document title would not be available if the person landed on an
opaque web page (a Web page that was of a new technology that the
persons AT did not support). The only thing the user would know would
be the URI of the project.
In my experience, the document title, or key phrasing (that arguably
serves as a title), is almost available from the context than provided
the opaque web page.
The exception is the occasion email that read like this:
> Hey buddy, check this out!
> http://www.example.com/foo.bar
In such situations, I am extremely doubtful than an alternative
accessible version of foo.bar exists!
I am of the opinion that the condition that the title be "readily
accessible from the non-conforming page" in Sufficient Techniques 7 is
overly restrictive.
If this is really a significant problem, it should not be difficult to
come up with a couple real life examples. I repeat the challenge:
Please post examples of documents where searches on the root file name
or document title fail to turn up HTML versions? The caveat of course,
is confidence that the HTML version is posted on the same site!
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 14:12:46 UTC