Re: @title's relation to accessibility

hi John, I think your confusing Accessibility with Universality amongst
other things

Here is how the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative defines web accessibility:


*"Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web*.
More specifically, Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can
perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can
contribute to the Web. Web accessibility also benefits others, including older
people <> with changing abilities due
to aging.
Web accessibility encompasses all disabilities that affect access to the
Web, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, and
neurological disabilities."

On 03/09/07, Jon Barnett <> wrote:
> On 9/3/07, Sander Tekelenburg <> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, thanks. Yes, I can see how such use of @title can be helpful in some
> > browsing situations. But personally I would think such markup can be
> useful
> > for all browsing situations, not just for "accessibility".
> Using proper, meaningful markup in a way that is useful for all
> browsing situations is the definition of "accessibility".
> Remember that "accessibility" doesn't just mean "readable to blind
> people".
> Accessibility means accessibility to ALL browsing situations:
> - blind people with aural browsers
> - blind people with braille UAs
> - deaf people
> - sighted people with low vision
> - well-abled people with a non-graphical UA
> - well-abled people with outdated graphical UAs
> - well-abled people with outdated hardware and/or slow connections
> - well-abled people with modern graphical UAs
> - well-abled people without proprietary plugins
> - non-humans attempting to make sense of a document (spiders)
> - people who speak a language other than the author's primary language
> I'm sure there are other facets that fall under the term "accessibility"
> If say that @title exists to make content more meaningful in certain
> situations or all situations, then yes, it has something to do with
> accessibility.  Beyond that, I don't know what point you're trying to
> make in this thread (maybe you're using a more specific definition of
> the word "accessibility"?)
> As a counter-example, I could write a page that uses nothing but <div>
> and <span> elements.  It could look *great* on a graphical UAs and on
> paper.  It could make perfect sense to a blind user with an aural UA.
> But is that the best I can do for accessibility?  No - the document
> might be unusable on Netscape 4 or in Lynx, and a spider would have a
> hard time finding any meaning in the document.
> --
> Jon Barnett

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium |
Web Accessibility Toolbar -

Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 21:40:34 UTC