- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 03:22:58 +0200
- To: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I agree with John - it isn't the manufacturer's responsibility to make instructor's cars. I actually think it would be valuable to have a discussion in the WCAG techniques about ways to work around things the technology does badly. That should include workarounds even if they are only useful in some cases (like Flash being able to work on one platform with a couple of screen readers, but not necessarily being accessible in general). That information should also include, as a matter of course, discussion of the relevant architectural principles for the web. If there is a workaround that lets some people move forward now, but will hold back the development of the web as a whole (text alternatives as a single attribute, or default text in form fields, for example) in the future, then that should be noted and people should be warned about the fact that at some point they should expect to remove a work-around because the manufacturers have tuned their software better... (Although this takes a lot of time. Most common browsers handle XML pretty nicely and have done for a couple of versions at least. But people still rely on them rendering badly-written HTML, which means the manufacturers keep putting effort into workarounds for it instead of into actually improving the browsers' ability to handle useful things like maths, or better integrate graphics and multimedia in pages). chaals On Monday, Jun 2, 2003, at 15:05 Europe/Zurich, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > If browsers were made so that one could not do the things that are > supposedly best left to say the OS, then our users and their helpers > would be very seriously disadvantaged, as I would not be able to > 'help' them. The guidelines need to include examples of why, and for > what reason, they can be broken, and show how to do this as accessibly > as possible. One could compare this with a driving instructor's car, > different needs will require duplication of discrete parts.
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 21:25:22 UTC