- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:57:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Jason White said: > It would be best for accessibility if Q were used widely. How can we assess the severity of accessibility damage if Q is wounded and on the "injured reserve," off the playing field? For the purposes of isolating one question, let's stipulate some assumptions: ASSUMPTIONS: Let's stipulate that using Q and styles is the best all around. Let's stipulate that under the transitional situation migrating from browser rarely inserts quote marks for you around Q content to browser always inserts quote marks for you around Q content that authors largely avoid Q. Let's assume the worst case, that they just insert literal quotation marks in the text content of their HTML. QUESTION: What happens? What I have learned so far suggests that there are the following negative consequences: Braille: Users get quotes with single quotes where double quotes should be and vice versa. Speech: Some paragraphs with inline quotes have to be re-read with punctuation on to grasp the flow. Is that the full extent of the degradation? Or are some pages now simply incomprehensible? How would you characterize the severity of impact? That's what I would like us to understand better. -- Al
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 1997 13:36:37 UTC