- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:11:53 +0200
- To: david.clark@umb.edu, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:35:55 +0200, David Clark <david.clark@umb.edu> wrote: > I love this line from the developer docs: > "The Bindows framework now includes support for accessibility (US > Government Section-508 requirements) in Internet Explorer for visually > impaired users." > > If the statement requires those two provisos, is it really a solution? The question is actually interesting even if you are not, as I am, working for a different browser company... In the narrow confines of US law, I suspect that it could be "enough". To meet the legal requirement, if not to make the Web really a lot more accessible. Coding for a given browser/screen reader/etc is a pretty narrow approach, in principle, to making the Web better. It is true that each browser introduces new technology, and others follow (from tabs and mouse gestures to accesskey and AJAX accessibility), typically through standardisation of some sort. (In this context W3C is important, but so are organisations like WHAT-WG). Standards are not a good place to be doing the innovation (although standards organisations often have the right people to do innovation as well). And coding to a standard is the goal that makes for an open marketplace responsive to customers, rather than a vendor lock-in that creates artificial monopolies. That said, I am intrigued by why they chose to work with IE. Various people, including Opera, are working through WAI to develop accessibility standards for AJAX, primarily led by UBAccess on their own behalf and IBM who are paying to make Firefox more accessible. I wonder whether they took this into account, or are just creating yet another version of the accessible wheel. In the accessibility market in particular this is important. Being relatively small, a lack of standardisation has long enforced a very distorted marketplace for the whole web. Still, we'll see what happens. Life on the bleeding edge is always a bit messy - the question is about how, and how well, we transfer this to the "trailing edge" - what North Americans might call the "moms and pops". (Neither of those is a word that figures in my brand of english, but I recognise them ;) cheers Chaals > On 7/17/06, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov> wrote: >> >> I think the article contains some unsupported inflammatory assertions, >> not the least of which is byline! I am hoping the author might get a >> note about how WCAG 1.0 and especially the draft 2.0 provide for >> changes in dynamic content. >> >> Can AJAX find harmony on agency Web sites? >> Hot coding technique unable to hit fed Web pages because of >> accessibility questions. >> http://www.fcw.com/article95257-07-17-06-Print&printLayout >> Wade-Hahn Chan, Federal Computer Week, 17 July 2006. -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 15:12:14 UTC