Re: Path to Last Call (was closing various issues)

At 8:16  -0700 23/08/09, William Loughborough wrote:
>I wonder when quite valid concerns of this sort will be unimaginable?
>How is it possible at this late date in the saga of "everyone 
>connected" that "just for accessibility reasons" is even a 
>The almost undeniable fact that this particular item being "likely 
>not going to happen" reflects very badly on us all. Are we really 
>saying something like "have mercy on the poor beleaguered developers 
>for being imposed upon by being "required" to do something "just for 
>"Oh, why must we *force* authors to do alt-text well, it's just for 
>accessibility, isn't it? Perhaps if we can show some 'business case' 
>for it, we can get it done."

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.  Are you 
saying you have no sympathy for developers who have to do something 
'just for accessibility reasons', or you have no sympathy for users 
who need accessibility and don't get it, because they it relies on 
support which few developers implement and they neither see nor test 

Or perhaps something else.  I can't tell.

I think we re-hashed this many times; we're more likely to get good 
accessibility if it is an integral, natural, part of the design, and 
when the system that has bad accessibility is also bad in other 
respects.  If the accessibility provisions are invisible to the 
average developer, and getting them wrong is not perceptible to them, 
accessibility will suffer, I fear.  Are you disagreeing with this?

>On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Steven Faulkner 
><<>> wrote:
>it is the creation of the shadow dom objects that concerns me, if it 
>is the case that developers are required to create this in addition 
>(just for accessibility reasons) then it is very likely not going to 
>happen, but if it had utility beyond just accessibility then it 
>would be used.

David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 17:24:29 UTC