Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

that is why we worded it the way we did.    For an INTRAnet - the Authors (company) need to make it work with their browsers- and if that means giving special browser to some - then that is on them.

but for public sites - they need to make it work with the browsers that the public is expected to have — and this is the default or free browsers.   At least that was the decision of the WCAG 2.0 WG. 


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 23/01/2017 19:06, Gregg C Vanderheiden wrote:
>> 
> 
>> what we worked with in WCAG was
>> 
>> Available in most of the major free (FF, IE, Saf, Chrome, etc)  and esp
>> the default  (IE Saf) browsers
>> 
>> the default were particularly important since there are many places
>> where people are only allowed to use the default browsers
> 
> Assuming though that something isn't available in a default browser, isn't it the responsibility (potentially even legal responsibility, if it's an employer for instance, at least in certain countries) of the "place" to provide the users with suitable user agents that cover their needs? Many such places may not provide other things such as screen readers...but the expectation is not that authors would then need to make their sites self-voicing (though yes, there is of course no similar "a mechanism is available" about this scenario in WCAG per se, but conceptually this is related).
> 
> P
> -- 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> 
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 18:48:31 UTC