Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

+1

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 22, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> John Foliot:  I am becoming increasingly concerned that this phrase -
> ‘mechanism is available’ - is fast becoming the new "Until user agents...",
>
>
> I had already thought that's what 2.0 did instead, wasn't it? E.g. Bypass
> blocks, if user-agents supported landmarks for keyboard-users we wouldn't
> need skip links anymore, for many cases at least.
>
>
> Mechanism is available is a very powerful and forward looking approach.
> It says “if the mech isnt there in browsers - or you do something to break
> that one — then you need to provide the mechanism yourself (this also
> speaks to Alastair’s #4).     But it also allows that when browsers add
> things (like browsers that all added zoom or font sizing with wrap)  that
> authors no longer have to do that — as long as they don’t break it.
>
>
>