Re: @title's relation to accessibility

At 22:52 +0100 UTC, on 2007-09-03, Joshue O Connor wrote:

> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:


> I guess this is the goal of the new spec.However it seems to me that if
> a feature or attribute is not explicitly accessibility related then it
> may have a greater chance of surviving the machinations of how the spec
> develops.

FWIW, I agree with that. The greater the amount of users that benefit from a
feature, the more likely authors will make (correct) use of it. To what
extent HTML5 can achieve this in practice we'll have to see, but as a
principle starting point, it makes sense to me.

Note though that a distinction is being made between "universality", and
"ideal accessibility". See

IMO HTML5 must provide universality, period. Where it can, it should also
cater for specific "ideal accessibility" cases.


> there should be greater
> awareness in the group of how vendors will likely implement aspects of
> the spec.

Agreed. But how are we going to be aware without input from "AT" developers?


> there *are* specific
> use cases and user requirements that need explicit bindings.

Agreed. This is why I bothered to discover and define the differences between
universality and accessibility, as well as to try to write up to what extent
there appears to be agreement on how to approach both:
<>. So far noone has
voiced disagreement with that writeup.


>>> Why should an ordinary
>>> user have to know how HTML works in order to use their assistive
>>> technology correctly?
>> Well, I have to say that realilty dictates that he should ;) (Or otherwise
>> not complain when he misses out on things.)
> I trust that last sentence is drenched in irony.

I don't really mean that users must know HTML, but that they should not
simply accept that a tool doesn't work good enough. I do think that, as I
said elsewhere, in the end it is up to the user to take control of his life.
(I expanded on that elswhere in this thread, so I won't repeat.)


> The use of the img element and its
> attributes is a perfect case in point where you have two related
> attributes but the way they are rendered is an either or situation.

But really, what is that if not a UA bug?

(And I don't mean just that the UA presents only either one, but also that it
suggests such a relation between @alt and @title. I have the growing
impression that this stems mostly from Jaws' reliance on IE and has from
there started a life of its own.)


Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 15:19:55 UTC