- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:20:04 -0500 (EST)
- To: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Summary: I thnk relying on "*A* most compliant browser" is going to get us into as much trouble as we are already in, and we have to recognise that unless browsers become perfect we are going to live with some compromises... detail: There are a large range of disabilities, and a large range of document formats / applet languages / object formats / whatever they are called. The range of disabilities means that it is a large amount of work to make one browser that meets everyone's needs - at a minimum we would expect browsers that are triple-A compliant to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, and there are currently none of those. So different people are going to find different browsers are the best available fit for their needs, and the very least is that we need to try and get people to use "one of the more compliant browsers". In addition, as already discussed, it is unrealistic to expect most people to upgrade their browsers every month and learn to use the relevant new features, yet new browser versions are released every few weeks, and any of those is potentially the new "most compliant browser" for a given set of needs. I think in many cases it takes more time than that even to do the real testing to find that out, let alone actualy change over systems (and associated support features, etc.) As some balance to the difficulties of working with reality, there are some good things - most browsers are getting better, many different browsers are available and doing different but good things, so getting a new version of any browser is almost certainly a good thing to do... cheers Charles On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, RUST Randal wrote: >Further, it is not specifically older browsers that are >"non-standard" - >there are known standards compliance issues in every browser I >know of, and >some of these cause serious accessibility problems. A reason >why people use >older browsers is because in some cases those are the ones >that cause them >the fewest problems. i agree. the reality is that we'll probably never have a browser that is completely standardized, so we'll have to settle with a "most-compliant" browser, rather than "compliant." randal -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 08:20:05 UTC