- From: Bart Simons <bart.simons@anysurfer.be>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:03:23 +0200
- To: "W3C WAI ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Christophe et al, >> At 21:27 15/08/2010, Wayne Dick wrote: >>Don't worry if a particular screen reader can or cannot read it. If >>you meet the sufficient conditions and a screen reader can't read it >>then the screen reader has a bug and you should report it. > > But if no screen reader supports the technique you're using, the technique > is not accessibility-supported. Who is authorised to judge whether a technique is accessibility supported or not? Web designers are not specialised in A T support so they need someone to tell them which technique is guaranteed to work. In my oppinion techniques that are not accessibility supported should not exist. Let us take again H33: Supplementing link text with the title attribute http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H33 Under the "User Agent and Assistive Technology Support Notes" heading follow so many arguments claiming the technique is not accessibility supported that I think the technique should be (temporarily) deleted. I understand it is there because it might be supported in the future, but who is monitoring this. Who can decide when a technique becomes enough accessibility supported to be used? The A T market is not the most open one. Who knows how many people are using product a, b or c and which version of it. On what should claims about accessibility supportedness be based? Regards Bart Simons -- AnySurfer - Quality mark for accessible websites in Belgium http://www.anysurfer.be
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 14:03:55 UTC