- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 10:45:52 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 05/03/2021 10:30, David Woolley wrote: > On 05/03/2021 00:30, Fire In The Sky wrote: >> One solution to this could be to have an option to get the URL as text >> or email, so that typing could be avoided, and people could proceed by > > I don't understand this. Whatever mechanism to request the link could > be used directly in place of the QR code. > QR codes only - in my mind at least - make sense when trying to bridge the gap between a printed document and a digital device (saving the user the hassle of typing in a URL), or when bridging an "air gap" between two digital devices that can't talk to each other directly (e.g. your set-top box/TV showing a QR code on the screen for you to scan with an app on your mobile device so the two can be paired together easily). I believe the latter scenario is the context we're talking about here (i.e. you couldn't just have an actual clickable link as you won't access it on the same device). And yes, in both cases, a non-QR alternative is always good to have. -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 5 March 2021 10:46:08 UTC