W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Fwd: WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.4

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>
Message-ID: <op.sts37ie0wxe0ny@pc099.qadoc.oslo.opera.com>

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  

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...



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:26 UTC