- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:22:29 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 13/01/2017 00:10, Alastair Campbell wrote: > JF wrote: >> a significant re-write is likely in order, as that is not at all >> clear from the current draft text, which states that (for the >> author) a mechanism be provided (actually, "a mechanism is >> available") - which suggests to me that it is the responsibility >> of the author to provide that mechanism. > > I get that people aren't understanding that the intent is that it > could be via user-agent, I didn't to start with either. However, > don't you want to keep the WCAG 2.0 approach? > > This is language directly taken from 2.0, used in bypass blocks, > audio control, link purpose, unusual words, error prevention, and > more at AAA. > > Mechanism is defined in WCAG, and the (normative) note underneath > is: "Note 1: The mechanism may be explicitly provided in the content, > or may be relied upon to be provided by either the platform or by > user agents, including assistive technologies." > > If that isn't suitable, what would you suggest? Can we sort it out in > the Understanding doc? > > I think we're retiring Line length, but the point is the same for > several others, so it is worth hashing out. The disconnect for me comes when UAs/platforms that don't provide that particular functionality/mechanism are then also excluded...so effectively we're saying "a mechanism for X should be available, which in most cases is already taken care of by the UA, except this SC doesn't apply if the UA doesn't provide this sort of mechanism"? P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 13 January 2017 01:22:59 UTC