Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

we used default or free   in WCAG 2.0

Actually we used default   or    free and widely know    — but essentially that is all there was at that time.    

g


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Jan 26, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 26/01/2017 18:41, Gregg C Vanderheiden wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Here you say "default OR free". In the previous message, you said "the default were particularly important since there are many places where people are only allowed to use the default browsers" which led me to believe you meant it always MUST work in those default browsers too.
> 
> If "default OR free", I have no concerns. But if there IS an imperative that it MUST work if the user only has access to the default browser, and particularly if the assumption is they can't install extra extensions/make drastic changes to the settings since they're in public, then that will be problematic for certain things that I'm seeing proposed (for instance, it would be unlikely for a user on a public machine with only default browser to install their own custom stylesheet, or to rely on an extension to inject custom styles, as is/was being discussed in the LV side of some proposed SCs)
> 
> 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 Friday, 27 January 2017 04:45:18 UTC