- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:34:20 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:04:54 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> Yep. But the key point is that until software does do a better job, >> either authors do some extra work that *should* be done by the >> software, or users don't have access to the content :-( >> It's the unpleasant gap between specs and reality, that a section of >> WCAG tried to bridge. > > I feel this may be yet another task for the newly formed WaSP ATF :) There are a few parts to it. One is making it clear to software manufacturers (browser makers, assitive technology developers who are the problem in this particular case) what needs to be implemented. A second is getting authors to make the content that convinces the manufacturers that this is worth investing resources in because it will lead to a real return. And a third is getting users to actually show it is useful by taking up tools that get it right. It's a sort of multi-way chicken and egg problem. The WaSP do a good job of some of these aspects, and some of it should be done by the groups who are writing the specifications. As a browser maker, we try to prioritise what we do, since we don't have an infinite supply of programmers and testers. Where there are a great many things to be done, and a very small user base for each one (either because very few people will upgrade or change browsers to get the new functionality, or because there is almost no content that uses it), it makes sense to pick off the easy targets first. This leads to a range of browsers upgrading different things in the hope that interoperability will appear in the long term. Is there a better way of prioritising? Should we be saying "sorry folks, we're not interested in blind users we are going to focus first on people with reading difficulties", or vice versa? Is the ATF going to take that line and push for a particular sequence of improvements? The more clear information that is available on what the gaps are in different browsers and assistive technologies, and the more recognition (as in actual use) that improvements get, the easier it is to argue for a particular improvement. I do hope that the ATF helps with this, and that the WCAG group provides enough useful information to base this on... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk Here's one we prepared earlier: http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 15:34:49 UTC