- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:47:28 -0500
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>Does anyone have comments/preferences regarding
>>the accessibility, semantics, aesthetics, and
>>practicality of these? My screen reader tests
>
>You are limiting yourself to recent desktop graphical browsers.
And how does that constitute "limiting"?
Where is your evidence that the great
preponderance of people with relevant
disabilities are *not* using "recent desktop
graphical browsers"?
Where, furthermore, is your evidence that people
with relevant disabilities who are not using
"recent desktop graphical browsers" will be in
any way inconvenienced or have their
accessibility impaired by the use of a correct pi
character as a separator in a breadcrumb trail?
Or do you just not like Web sites that take care
to craft correct, aesthetically-pleasing
typography?
>Other browsers won't have fonts that cover these.
Prove it.
> Lynx may approximate with characters it has.
And it does a beautiful job, as ever.
> Testing possible divisions for breadcrumb navigation.
>
>Trebuchet MS
>
> 187 (right angle quote):
> »
>
> 8230 (ellipsis):
> ...
>
> 8250 (single right angle quote):
> >
>
> 8594 (right arrow):
> ->
>
> 8658 (right double arrow):
> =>
>
> 8712 (element of):
> (-
>
> 8715 (contains a member):
> -)
>
> 8834 (subset of):
> !(C
>
> 8835 (superset of):
> )C
>
> 8869 (up tack):
> -T
>
> 9674 (lozenge):
> LZ
Typically for this esteemed List, whenever
somebody comes along with a standards-compliant
method of making a site look nice, *even at the
level of pi characters*, immediately some
backward ninny gets on his hobby horse and warns
that one person in Mongolia might not have the
same experience.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org | <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2003 19:48:32 UTC