- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:21:32 +0300
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Aug 25, 2009, at 08:24, Ian Hickson wrote: > I don't really understand what problem we're trying to solve here. Why > would we give authors using WYSIWYG tools a license to not care about > making their pages accessible? That seems backwards. It's not about giving authors using WYSIWYG tools a license not to care about making their pages accessible. It is about acknowledging that when there's an abstraction layer that hides HTML syntax from the author, the syntax error-based feedback loop to the author doesn't work and instead the feedback is deflected by the tool developer. The problem being solved is removing the incentive not to conform to ATAG 2 in order to perform the deflection. (The tool vendor can't enforce WCAG 2 compliance of the tool users.) The right place to for software to complain at users of WYSIWYG tools about lack of accessibility is the WYSIWYG tool complaining at the user. A validator is the right place to complain at authors who don't use WYSIWYG editor-like abstraction layers between them and HTML syntax. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:22:37 UTC