- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:38:27 +0200
- To: "Roger Hudson" <rhudson@usability.com.au>, "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:18:01 +0200, Roger Hudson
<rhudson@usability.com.au> wrote:
> Short article on the need for accessibility regulators to embrace the
> idea of accessibility supported and recognise that the HTML only
> perspective of 1999 no longer works.
I don't think that we had an HTML only perspective in 1999, but there were
a bunch of reasons (some accessibility-related and some frankly not) for
preferring HTML where feasible in 1999. I think some of those hold today
(particularly the ones that are not related to accessibility), but I think
you areright that we need to be more pragmatic.
Both by recognising the place, and the success in some cases, of the
proprietary alternatives, and by recognising the limits they impose. As
seems to be the case nearly always, it turns out that a more subtle (which
really means more complex, and therefore harder to explain to someone
without the time to listen) approach could give us better results...
Anyway, interesting article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 07:39:16 UTC