W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: Alert: accessibility and HTML Q element

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:39:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710290439.XAA27917@access2.digex.net>
To: JBrewer@w3.org (Judy Brewer)
Cc: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Judy Brewer said:

> We had a heads-up that this might be coming through for quick review, and
> yes, there is some time pressure on the HTML 4.0 spec and so Dan has had to
> make a procedural determination here.
> 
> In any case, I appreciate that the HC WG is already working
> this issue over, and hope that with Jason's and other's
> suggestions we will be able to come up with a solution that
> addresses the concern that Dave has raised.

I believe that reasonable accommodation requires reasonableness
on both sides.  What we decide now is a procedural choice as
well.  If this problem is an absolute show-stopper for access
reasons, we need to tell the HTML group NOW.  If it is marginal,
we can still raise a concern after the PR goes out.

As I understand it none of the suggestions about smart styling
(adapting to quotes at the edges of the Q tag content) are new,
compared to what has been considered by the HTML group.

Attempts at smart styles will also result in some broken
formatting.  The depressing effect on Q tag usage will not be
entirely removed by the specification provisions as stated in the
October 17 draft.

Dan didn't just rule on the procedure, he ruled on the substance.
I personally believe he is mis-reading the subject RFC as saying
what should be done when quotes _do_ appear, framing the rest of
the Q tag content.  I think it doesn't say.  But that is not what
we have been asked to decide.

We need to decide whether the _access denial_ caused by this
specification provision requires that we ask for reconsideration.

Everybody please put on your thinking caps, not so much to
re-craft the spec, but to try to evaluate the severity of the
damage.  Is it a serious _access_ issue?  Or is it a style issue
that Braille and audio users care about along with every one else
-- maybe even a little more.  In the latter case, it may not be
appropriate to ask for immediate reconsideration by reason of
inaccessibility.

-- Al
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 1997 23:40:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:11 UTC