- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:31:29 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Dear Charles, So you want to add a caveat to the WCAG? AAA compliance is not sufficient to denote accessible content? There are too many shades of gray already. Accommodating broken browser in the name of accessibility seems like a dangerous and slippery slope to navigate! (Especially since there are several conflicts between AA/AAA recommended practices -- and the behavior of the currently available browsers.) -- Cheers, Bruce Bailey Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Well, it depends what the browser is - some are seriously broken to the point > of not being able to render accessible content. But in general I would say > that if the content is unreadable it is not accessible... > > Charles > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote: > > Allow me to restate the question from a side conversation Dave and I have > having: > > Can a page/site which is WCAG AAA compliant consider itself "accessible" even > though the default rendering with a popular browser turns the intended content > into useless hash?
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2000 13:31:57 UTC